Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 159 posts

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#31

Post by lqdc13 »

mindcrime wrote: post #23

This has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard in my life. Not because it doesn't possibly have some noble intent behind it, but - if for no other reason - because it's going to be bloody impossible to enforce. When any hobbyist can easily build a drone/UAV without much in the way of special skills or equipment, how in the hell do they ever expect they'll get everybody to register them?

They can simply fine people who do not have the documents with them. Like a police officer would come up to a drone pilot and ask for documents.

You can build a bicycle much more easily than a drone and many counties and some countries require people to register their bicycles.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#32

Post by Spooky23 »

ctdonath wrote: post #19
MichaelApproved wrote: post #2

I love the progress drones have given our society. From surveying property to beautiful aerial views in a video to cool view of your kids soccer game to just plain fun. Drones are amazing. You can buy a great drone and get amazing shots over and over for less than it would cost to hire a helicopter once. However, they also pose a risk. I'd favor a simple registration process and clear cut rules that are not infringin…

What is registration supposed to do? Broadly, those who will register are responsible enough to not be a problem, those idiots you want to control won't register, and it all just ends up mostly harassing the wrong people. Have and enforce laws against bad behavior, yes, but stop this "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense.

A similar concept applies to license place on road vehicles.

Sometimes some dude drives around without plates or takes an off road vehicle on the road. The police ticket the operator and tow the vehicle in some cases.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#33

Post by saulrh »

objclxt wrote: post #20
saulrh wrote: post #3

And now we hope that their definition of "drone" doesn't include traditional RC aircraft, ten-dollar indoor micro-quadcopters, paper airplanes, RC cars, model rockets, or children's balloons. Edit: oh, and that it does include commercial airliners under autopilot, military aircraft under autopilot, NASA-scale rocket launches, and military guided missiles and cruise missiles.

Somehow I have a feeling commercial aircraft, military aircraft, and rocket launches are already registered with the US government. Just a feeling.

Oh, certainly. I just also want them registered and generally recognised as being "drones". I get really annoyed at people who scream about "future killer drones changing warfare" and "how can they possibly be safe" while they're sitting on an airliner that's been under computer guidance since it finished taxiing and when the US military has been using guided missiles since the 50s.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#34

Post by neurotech1 »

One thing about the RPV/Quadcopter debate that is rarely mentioned is the reason why they don't use ADS-B transponders.

The FAA requires ADS-B trasponders to have high accuracy GPS, and that pushes the cost to over $2,000 per device. It would be logical for the FAA to relax the GPS requirement slightly, so a cheap GPS module is sufficient to alert nearby aircraft of RPV activity over a certain altitude (eg. 200ft AGL) These RPV-grade ADS-B transponders could use a limited signal output, to avoid nuisance pop-ups from longer distances. The transponder Mode-S ID uniquely identifies the RPV.

It would be possible for a transponder to use an alternate channel frequency, similar to how many General Aviation aircraft use 978Mhz ADS-B. Even with an alternate RPV channel, the RPV operators would still be alerted to regular aircraft operations.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#35

Post by Spooky23 »

striking wrote: post #11
MichaelApproved wrote: post #2

I love the progress drones have given our society. From surveying property to beautiful aerial views in a video to cool view of your kids soccer game to just plain fun. Drones are amazing. You can buy a great drone and get amazing shots over and over for less than it would cost to hire a helicopter once. However, they also pose a risk. I'd favor a simple registration process and clear cut rules that are not infringin…

But then again, what if people start harvesting people's identities from the drones through the identifier? I think it's a neat idea, but it straddles the 4th Amendment line and could potentially expose your identity to people who don't like drones.

You don't have a right to privacy in public spaces. You can be a weirdo and wear a baclava and only travel by foot or use cash to use public transit, but that behavior in itself de-anonymizes you.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#36

Post by Malstrond »

baddox wrote: post #17
sopooneo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you, but at some point the battle is lost, and you're throwing good effort after bad.

I agree that it's a waste of effort, and that the battle is lost even if you had a solid argument, but you don't. "Drone" has been used to refer to unmanned aircraft since at least as far back as World War 2. This article is a good summary: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873241104045786258...

What about these:

Historical argument: Model R/C aircraft have been around for longer (including a video downlink and limited autonomous flight like return-to-home) than the term drone has been applied to them, even if it existed before as you said. Since the capabilities of these R/C aircraft didn't change, it is logical that their name doesn't change either.

Usefulness of the definition: Aircraft which are the size of a van and shooting rockets at brown people in the middle east are also called drone. Since capabilities, dangers and use case differ so radically from a 600g aicraft crashing into trees because it's fun, it is logical that they have a different name.

Political argument: Because drone is associated with the aforementioned military aircraft, it makes it easier to call for more regulation of hobbyists by playing on the public's fears.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#37

Post by rcthompson »

saulrh wrote: post #33
objclxt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow I have a feeling commercial aircraft, military aircraft, and rocket launches are already registered with the US government. Just a feeling.

Oh, certainly. I just also want them registered and generally recognised as being "drones". I get really annoyed at people who scream about "future killer drones changing warfare" and "how can they possibly be safe" while they're sitting on an airliner that's been under computer guidance since it finished taxiing and when the US military has been using guided missiles since the 50s.

An aircraft flying under autopilot with a human pilot present who is monitoring the situation and can respond to ATC instructions and take manual control if necessary is not remotely similar to a UAV from a practical perspective, despite the superficial similarity of both being flown by a computer.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#38

Post by caseysoftware »

baddox wrote: post #15
barefoot wrote: post #5

In case anyone is reading from NBC, would you mind using the term "UAV" or "RPA" over "drone"? When we throw around the word "drone" here on reddit and hacker news I feel like it's okay because many of us know the key differences between what we're flying and the hellfire raining completely terrifying semi-automated flying death machines deployed in war-zones around the world. However, many people who read your artic…

> However, many people who read your articles might not be so well informed. Many people have an incorrect and confused understanding of them and to them the word "drone" carries that jumbled mess of an associations. Do you actually know anyone who has made this mistake? I've heard scores of people online claim this, but I've never met anyone who has actually met someone with this confusion. Who reads this article an…

In these circles, a "drone" is usually the little ones you might attach a Go Pro to or control with your iPhone, not a UAV similar to what the military uses. I'd go so far as when someone says "drone" to the general public, they think of the guy at the park before the military version.

If NBC wanted to clarify, they could add a line like "drone - anything with a wingspan over X feet - would have to be registered" and completely dispel any confusion.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#39

Post by ctdonath »

objclxt wrote: post #21
ctdonath wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is registration supposed to do? Broadly, those who will register are responsible enough to not be a problem, those idiots you want to control won't register, and it all just ends up mostly harassing the wrong people. Have and enforce laws against bad behavior, yes, but stop this "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense.

Would you apply the same logic to cars? Because I think all of your points apply equally to cars, but nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive.

Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. A vehicle tag should simply identify the vehicle out of a sea of mixed clones (a la: which blue Mustang?).

I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers would have enumerated a "right to vehicular travel" if they had conceived of license-as-a-privilege restriction on horseless carriages.

Re: U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

#40

Post by krasin »

ctdonath wrote: post #39
objclxt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you apply the same logic to cars? Because I think all of your points apply equally to cars, but nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive.

Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. A vehicle tag should simply identify the vehicle out of a sea of mixed clones (a la: which blue Mustang?). I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers would have enumerated a "right to vehicular travel" if they had conceived of license-as-a-privilege restriction on horseless carriages.

>Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school.

This is not a good time investment for children, given that not all of them will drive. Especially, considering that driverless cars are coming soon.

Post reply on HN