Uncle Sam gives itself the right to shoot down any drone, anywhere, any time, any how The US federal government has just authorized its staff to shoot down any drone they consider a threat. The provision was added to the routine reauthorization act for the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) – the watchdog that deals with America's skies – and has invited the ire of civil liberties groups who are unhappy at the …
This post has been deleted by its author
"How exactly do you shoot down a drone, with a pistol?"
12 gauge, modified choke, magnum goose loads. Good out to 80 or 90 yards or a tick more (depending on the weather, the shooter, the gun, and the handloader). Any fairly proficient duck hunter should have no problem taking out a drone.
Special note for the hand-wringers: the collateral damage should be nil.
Even easier... streamers! Enough to foul up the props for long enough to disrupt airflow and cause it to lose air space. ;-)
-----------
Yup, exactly what they want to walk around with down-south - a streamer-slinging 12-gauge.
Do the streamers come in red white and blue or rainbow colours?
"The last thing any sane shooter would want is to hurt somebody."
Problem is, as we know from regular news stories, that there are plenty of legal gun owners in the US who are anything but sane, either in the pejorative or medical senses. And a few more in other parts of the world.
"The last thing any sane shooter would want is to hurt somebody."
Okay, I'm pretty sure that what you MEAN is that the "last thing any sane sporting shooter would want to do is hurt a human being when shooting", but, erm, there is the little matter of guns having been invented in the first place mostly to, erm, kill human beings, and there are an awful lot of (one hopes) entirely sane people employed in armies and things like that, trained to use their firearms to kill other people if called upon to do so.
It'd be nice if the world weren't like that, but there you go.
>"credible threat… to the safety or security of a covered facility or asset."
"credible threat" isn't the key part of the clause. "the safety or security of a covered facility or asset" can easily include a drone investigating a corrupt police dept., a covert (potentially illegal) 'security' operation, a politician screwing his mistress...
I expect every Government will give themselves similar rights.
Government X can also claim it was a US Military Drone / Terrorist Drone / Drug Dealer / Paedophile etc (delete as required, or possibly claim all apply).
Is your flying car a drone if autopilot engaged? What about Uber Autonomous Flying Taxies?
Human piloted vehicles are already prohibited from anywhere Uncle Sam says. Don't believe me? Try buzzing the Golden Gate Bridge without authorization some time. Or parking your car and walking away from it at an unauthorized spot at, say, an airport. Or driving/flying into a military zone unannounced. (NOTE! I do not really suggest this! Don't try it! We get enough news reports of idiots Darwinizing themselves as it is.)
Or driving/flying into a military zone unannounced.
I know this to be true from my time in the US, but it only takes a radio call and if they are not busy then they have no problem with a civilian light aircraft flying an approach and low pass along the runway (no landing).
I wouldn't even bother asking at Marham or Brize etc, because the RAF are really not interested.
I wouldn't even bother asking at Marham or Brize etc, because the RAF are really not interested.
I dunno, if rock apes had carte blanche to shoot down any UFO, they may be interested. Otherwise, it'd just be a lot of paperwork.
I'm not sure activism should be a good defence (against buckshot). There are plenty of places with restrictions against photography or overflights, often for good reasons. But I guess that's part of the security challenge. If you're a private pilot, maps would show restricted airspace. Regular maps might not show anything, and proposals to geo-fence off restricted areas might just be a handy list of sites to scout out with your trusty drone.
I'm guessing there's also a public safety argument as well. So figure on some popular protest event and there might be multiple drones from press, authorities, protestors and counter protestors, and no simple way to deconflict the airspace and stopping drone wreckage.
Hmm... or, it could be an opportunity to arm RC fighters, or create mini-AAA systems..
In Germany, you can fly drones at model aircraft airfields or over open fields.
You cannot use it in towns or cities, over industrial areas or over residential areas. I believe forests are also limited.
The bigger ones have to be registered.
You cannot upload any footage taken with the drone online, if there are identifiable people on it (faces, vehicle registration numbers, signage etc.), without first getting a waiver - but that applies to all photography and videography in Germany. There are exceptions, if you are filming one person and another walks across the background, for example, although you would do well to blur them out, before uploading.
Or better still have drones fitted with some gov backdoor. If they see it and it won't respond to a take-over request then its not licensed and so shooting down is justified.
Now such an argument applies here only because a drone is often bought as a toy but poses a significant threat to aircraft, etc, which is rather different from encryption that protects everyone's commerce and privacy.
If they shot it down they'll say "they were suspicious of it" and that will be all the proof they need. The police in the US kill people who don't pose a threat and claim "I felt my life was being threatened" and all too often juries accept that - though fortunately that's beginning to change as it is finally started gaining much needed press attention the last couple years.
Until people are no longer killed without justification, no one is going to care about drones getting shot down without justification.
@Jake: ""Across the country police used the stun guns 30 times a day last year."
That is atrocious. Tasers were introduced as an alternative to deadly force, but there is no way in hell Firearms trained officers would have fired 30 times in one day/ This is urban pacification, and it should be resisted.
Oh, you must mean those Amazon delivery drones that will probably drop their packages on the address without detecting who or what is below...
[see icon]
As all the phone lines to the properties in my area are run overhead for the last 50/100 ft I wonder if those drones and their operators will be liable for the costs to fix the lines that that will inevitably run into?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
