US government publishes drone best practices You can't use drones to check whether your employee really is sick, or to take pictures of your neighbors, unless you're a news organization in which case the sky is the limit. That's according to advice published by the US government over how best to use drones – or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) as they are officially known …
They're precisely guidelines, as Congress hasn't passed any law to create such a code.
The "code" exists under the Executive Branch, barely.
Meaning, it's not especially enforceable, save within current existing legal code for aircraft or cameras.
Well, save in my area, which is a special aviation area, due to some critter called a B-52H.
But, to be honest, I'll give them that one.
As I have those BUFF's flying quite literally over my house, largely 24/7 in hours of operation and I do mean literally, as in cat running and hiding from their shadow literal, yeah, I don't want one ingesting a drone and falling on my house.
I'll be colored impressed when Congress isn't regulating bathrooms, coloring door stalls or similar nonsense and actually passes a law that actually has something to do with actually running the country.
Such as regulating drones, which are currently out of control.
This, said by a man who has used tactical drones in war and considered ginning up one to look at the traffic to and from work, save that it'd conflict with those B-52's...
No need accidentally conflicting and dropping one on my house, with a resultant loss of wife and cat, although the cat is beginning to become negotiable. (Russian Blue cat, exceptionally overaffectionate to the point of trip and keyboard risk, but alas, too cute to eat)
And as for news organizations: the rules do not apply. Instead they should "operate under the ethics rules and standards of their organization, and according to existing federal and state laws."
Who says government can't be funny?
What's not funny is when government tries to pick and choose exactly who is the Press. Absent a proper Office of Government Press Approval, there's no clear line between the Anointed Ones and the rest of us peons. I say I'd make a dandy reporteroid. I can hire myself and pay myself a wage too.
What's that? I am STILL to be denied Press Status? Ooooh, that's going straight in my blog!
I mean, my "Channel..."
I have a shotgun that operates under differing rules and suggestions.
Actually, that's a fair point insofar that all these guidelines offer no remedy whatsoever for when people give them the stiff ignoring that most guidelines get (like the Constitution, for instance).
Time to pick up clay pigeon shooting again, methinks, that way I can hit them with either a shotgun or a clay pigeon and still call it an accident :)
"I have a shotgun that operates under differing rules and suggestions.
I dare you."
OK, I put my M1A on that oversized drone and return the favor.
Anarchy isn't the way to go.
Besides, my house isn't pellet proof, start shooting randomly around, I'll precisely engage you and win. I never did learn how to miss and I'm good to 2 KM with my current equipment.
Indeed, but interestingly enough, my corporation has the contract for drone registration.
Not much in clue or regulations to discuss, just take a registration.
With absolutely zero input from Congress.
But then, one entire party is so totally busy regulating the non-problem of who squats in a stall and takes a crap.
Or even, gasp, urinates! Hint, I have lumbar issues, this older white guy sits down on occasion to take a leak - in the men's room, unless it's out of order and necessity intervenes. But, some states would make it illegal for me to change my granddaughter's diaper.
But, necessity or something.
"Yep we should go with the German like model of law* where things are usually prohibited unless the law specifically allows it."
You are Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and I claim my £5. Or Penny "I haven't got the first vestige of a clue about EU law but I'm still going to open my mouth on TV" Mordaunt.
The "Prohibited unless specifically allowed" applied to the Prussian State and its successors until 1945, where events took place that meant that the entire German legal system got overhauled into one that is more logical, rational, simple and therefore much, much cheaper than our own. Jokes about the German legal system come badly from a country which has possibly the most expensive, and one of the most inconsistent, legal systems in the world. (That assumes you're either in the US or the UK).
"Jokes about the German legal system come badly from a country which has possibly the most expensive, and one of the most inconsistent, legal systems in the world. (That assumes you're either in the US or the UK)."
Well, there still is Somalia. Where, who has the most guns active wins.
Some in the US are attempting, at their level best, to best Somalia in that manner.
"Don't forget "Life's about what you can get away with.""
Erm, largely in the US and Somalia. Civilized nations, your mileage may vary abruptly.
We're still busy regulating who gets to go into which bathroom and which religion gets to ignore the very first amendment.
And something about a repeatedly bankrupt casino guy.
Having read the linked PDF and finding that it was titled "Voluntary Best Practice for UAS Privacy, Transparency and Accountability" (my emphasis) I was unable to avoid concluding that the whole thing isn't worth the paper it may or may not have been printed on.
With words like "should", "if you can", and "recommends" it is clear that it can have no force whatsoever, and can be cheerfully ignored by anyone flying a drone.
Utterly effing pointless...
Not really. Some of us find such guidance something of value.
As in, yeah, that's a *really* bad idea, I'll not do it.
Other items, "Why would I, that's beyond my comprehension as to *why* I'd do that!".
Then, wonder about my neighbor.
Which, to be honest, I've done more than a few times recently. ;)
Having personally designated a vehicle and even buildings with terrorists in them, confirmed by myself and my teams, I have zero heartburn over that.
What I have heartburn over is, a program that plays numbers games, "we eliminated X number of targets", with zero real oversight and hence, people who should never have been harmed became victims of our program. That, I have major, major heartburn over.
I'm fairly certain that you have zero heartburn over killing terrorists, while having angst and rightfully so, innocent people going about their business.
I have some angst with the neighbors of a terrorist being victims when their home next door collapses, but at some point, we have to recognize that war and bombs aren't very precise things.
This, from one who has helped dig out the poor SOB's next door and handled the tragic results. Considering the one we eliminated and the sheer volume of innocent women and children claimed by his actions, I'd do it again. Digging the remains out is the least of my nightmares.
at some point, we have to recognize that war and bombs aren't very precise things
Or to put it more succinctly: Complicated things are complicated.
Ethical positions that fit on a bumper sticker may be comforting, but they don't solve many problems in the real world.
Well, save that reading the Constitution was mandatory reading for our children in the age group you spoke of and I personally purchased Nineteen Eighty-four for our children to read and they're voracious readers, yeah. Some still exist.
I've also taught critical thinking, rational analysis and picking your battles.
Dastardly thinking is a familial trait.
To the point where, I've repeatedly had men with silver stars on their collar remark to me personally, "Damn, but I'm glad that you're on *our* side".
As a single star is qualifying, I found the multiple, including several with four such starts, comforting.
Or, as I've told a terrorist on more than one occasion, there is the wrath of God and there is me and the creator decided to take the day off when I get involved.
The mind is the ultimate weapon, assuming you don't feed it deficient ammunition.
Currently, you're firing blanks. This is guidance only, suggestions, not rule of law and rule of law is impossible, as Congress wasn't involved.
The entire Constitution is still in force, although there are hiccups that should be addressed about abuses by FISA courts and lack of oversight.
We lack an emperor.
One party is more concerned about bathrooms or walls, making great strides to figure out how to do nothing, but look like they're doing something other than tax breaks for the highest earning minority in the nation.
And one majority candidate uses the National Enquirer as an information source.
I think we have bigger problems than a suggestion from a federal agency.
Such as, "The best government that money can buy"?
This is just a waste of taxpayer money. What's worse, this sort of action allows individuals like this author read into and interpret something which isn't the case, and isn't the intention of the statements within.
This is the FAA's jurisdiction. Commerce department can put out a voluntary guide for anything... it doesn't mean the ruling department (FAA in this case) has to look or consider it.
Another look into the Obama administration and how inefficient it is.
including anything relating to: employment eligibility, promotion, or retention; credit eligibility
"It's a Fair Isaac drone! Look rich, everyone!"
Though actually using drones would probably make FICO more transparent. At least you can see drones.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
