America Now Requires Drone Manufacturers to Include 'Remote ID' Transmitting 186
On Friday, long-time Slashdot reader NewtonsLaw wrote:
Manufacturers of drones made after 16 September 2022 must, from today (16 December), ensure that those drones are "Standard Remote ID" compliant. This means that the drones must broadcast packets of data once per second (using Bluetooth or Wifi) that contain the position speed and path of the drone, a unique identifier and the operator's position including height above ground....
Already, several companies have announced their intention to build networks of receivers that will create a realtime database of all drone activity in the USA, showing the positions of the drones and their operators and flagging any non-compliant craft.
By September 16, 2023, all U.S. hobbyists must fit "broadcast remote ID" modules to their RC model aircraft or older drones which also make them Remote ID compliant (unless they are under 250g in mass or are flown in pre-approved areas called FRIAs)....
Drone and radio-controlled model aircraft users must register with the FAA [unless they weigh less than 0.55 pounds], sit (and pass) a knowledge test and soon have this Remote ID technology installed on all their craft.
"Remote ID helps the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly," argues an FAA web page. This week the top intelligence official at the U.S. Department of Defense told reporters that drones, including drones operated by amateur hobbyists and by foreign adversaries, account for many of the reports of Unidentified Flying Objects, according to the Washington Post.
They quote Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of America's new UFO-tracking agency, as saying that "Some of these things almost collide with planes. We see that on a regular basis...."
Already, several companies have announced their intention to build networks of receivers that will create a realtime database of all drone activity in the USA, showing the positions of the drones and their operators and flagging any non-compliant craft.
By September 16, 2023, all U.S. hobbyists must fit "broadcast remote ID" modules to their RC model aircraft or older drones which also make them Remote ID compliant (unless they are under 250g in mass or are flown in pre-approved areas called FRIAs)....
Drone and radio-controlled model aircraft users must register with the FAA [unless they weigh less than 0.55 pounds], sit (and pass) a knowledge test and soon have this Remote ID technology installed on all their craft.
"Remote ID helps the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly," argues an FAA web page. This week the top intelligence official at the U.S. Department of Defense told reporters that drones, including drones operated by amateur hobbyists and by foreign adversaries, account for many of the reports of Unidentified Flying Objects, according to the Washington Post.
They quote Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of America's new UFO-tracking agency, as saying that "Some of these things almost collide with planes. We see that on a regular basis...."
Remote ID is for people who respect the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who want to do unsafe stunts and use their drones illegally will purchase one without it, or disable it using one of the many videos showing how to do it that will inevitably pop up on Youtube.
Like all such laws and regulations, they're just there to piss off honest people.
FAA's unofficial motto for decades.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well - there's always a way to mess things up for FAA - start to transmit megatons of fake data.
When there's fake data popping up in the line of flight for aircraft in obnoxious positions like the flight path in or out of JFK even though there isn't anything there then it's going to be more disruptive than an actual drone.
Re: (Score:2)
It can already be hacked around in various ways. All these off-the-shelf DJI drones being used by Ukrainians to attack Russians have been hacked in this way. Although they don't have Remote ID, they do, by default, report the position of the operator of the drone, which of course is pretty much a death sentence for drone operators in that kind of environment.
Re: (Score:2)
It can already be hacked around in various ways. All these off-the-shelf DJI drones being used by Ukrainians to attack Russians have been hacked in this way. Although they don't have Remote ID, they do, by default, report the position of the operator of the drone, which of course [would be] pretty much a death sentence for drone operators in that kind of environment.
FCC regs apply to drones operated by law enforcement, too.
I wonder how long it will be until, as the Ukranians did, the drug cartels come up wi
Re: (Score:2)
Just fake the position of the operator to known enemy positions and that would put an end to that problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds like it would be transparent to honest people. If they're getting mad about it, they probably need to work on their anger issues.
Re:Remote ID is for people who respect the law (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the big issue that many drone operators have with this Remote ID system is that it not only broadcasts the position of the drone but also the position of the person operating the drone.
So here we have, publicly accessible information telling would-be muggers or Karens exactly where a drone operator is standing. That operator will have a valuable drone, a smartphone and probably a wallet in their posession and be very much focused on flying their craft. That makes them an easy target for someone with nefarious intent who wants to relieve them of their riches.
And, as we've seen on numerous occasions, there are some people out there with an irrational objection to drones who have even, on occasion, presented firearms when confronting drone operators.
This Remote ID system significantly increases the risk level for drone operators -- whereas regulations are supposed to be about reducing risk.
Re: (Score:3)
I can imagine a host of new Raspberry Pi Pico W devices set up around a flying location transmitting "sample" telemetry data just to clog up any tracking devices.
The FAA says the UAV must transmit its tracking data, but because WiFi is an unlicensed frequency, it is legal to transmit anything I want in that frequency band, including "sample" tracking data. If I'm flying my RC plane, they will have to dig out my information from the other ten "sample" data streams the Pi Pico is transmitting.
If law enforcem
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA says the UAV must transmit its tracking data, but because WiFi is an unlicensed frequency, it is legal to transmit anything I want in that frequency band, including "sample" tracking data. If I'm flying my RC plane, they will have to dig out my information from the other ten "sample" data streams the Pi Pico is transmitting.
Come on, dude. You're not that stupid.
...transmit fraudulent Remote I
You're intelligent enough to operate a Pi, but not smart enough to handle very fucking simple dependencies between concepts?
Do you also think the fact that WiFi uses unlicensed spectrum, it's legal for you to transmit CP over it?
Unlicensed means just that. It's unlicensed.
It does not mean that you can transmit anything you want over it.
Now, all that being said- there is no statute that I'm aware of that makes it illegal for you to
Re: (Score:2)
Is it fraudulent? Is that information in some way "drone only", i.e. it's illegal to transmit something like this from something that isn't a drone?
Care to hand out the legal definition of a drone so I know I don't accidentally transmit it with a wrong device?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it fraudulent? Is that information in some way "drone only", i.e. it's illegal to transmit something like this from something that isn't a drone?
You're not Bill Clinton, so cut that shit out.
1) I specifically said it almost certainly wasn't illegal, and
2) Fraud is about intent. If you transmit that data in an attempt to deceive the government, you have engaged in fraudulent transmission of the information.
Care to hand out the legal definition of a drone so I know I don't accidentally transmit it with a wrong device?
No need. The law doesn't concern drones, it concerns all unmanned craft subject to FAA jurisdiction.
The legal definition? Anything that flies, that also leaves your immediate property, as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that like with porn, i.e. "if I see it I know it is"? Because I could think of a couple reasons why I'd want to transmit that information.
I transmit that information because I enjoy the feeling that I have a few 100 drones. That became illegal now?
Re: (Score:2)
Call 911 after that.
Or better, start using a registered emergency channel on your local radio.
Man, I bet your mommy told you that you were clever all the time, didn't she?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have an answer now after you're done with the insults or is that all?
Re: (Score:2)
No insults needed. Fuck around and find out, my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Sending bogus data to try to hide a crime is itself a crime, it will be assumed you are engaged in illegal activity, and finding you will climb in priority. The beacon signal includes an ID, using someone else's is illegal, and making one up is an obvious red flag.
Re: (Score:2)
All true. Not sure who modded you down but they must love a boot on their throat. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about wanting privacy and wanting the SPIRIT of the 4th amendment respected and the government to have no intel on your private life until AFTER they have some decent evidence you are up to something.
Another rather obvious reason to hate this is that it's going to both increase the cost of a drone by adding BT/WiFi and it is going to leech battery like a demon.
But despite the parent's desi
Re: (Score:2)
There is absolutely nothing dishonest about wanting privacy and wanting the SPIRIT of the 4th amendment respected and the government to have no intel on your private life until AFTER they have some decent evidence you are up to something.
Which is why one is subjected to all but a proctology exam to get on a plane in the U.S. You're already considered a criminal and have to prove your innocence.
That is what you meant, right? Becasue last I heard, there is no right to fly in this country which in turn mean
Re: (Score:3)
Muggers don't need a homing beacon to notice a distracted person.
While that's true, they do need something to notice one out of their LoS.
if they are carrying a cell phone and a drone controller, they're already emitting RF and broadcasting their location.
It's much harder to find someone using spread spectrum radio than to receive a broadcast beacon. Most people aren't going to triangulate a signal, but most people do carry a phone which could be used to receive the beacon signal. A cellphone can be turned off.
I don't think it's a very likely scenario either, but your responses don't make technical sense.
Re:Remote ID is for people who respect the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like laws against running red lights, helping yourself to the contents of someone else's house, and so on, are just there to piss off honest people?
Turns out the US has these people called "police" who occasionally enforce laws like this (I assume there are penalties attached to it, or will be in the future). Sure, they won't catch everyone, but they'll catch enough to discourage a lot of illegal use.
Re:Remote ID is for people who respect the law (Score:4, Insightful)
> just there to piss off honest people?
Well, it's not like "drones" are in any way new. For literally decades we called them "RC aircraft" and were left alone to our hobbies with hardly anyone throwing a fuss. But when the luddites of the world gave them a new name... using their weasel words to invoke images not of aviation nerds indulging in the hobby, but of Predators and Reapers and the like dropping Hellfires into wedding parties overseas... and all of the sudden we're regulating the hell out of the hobbies of, and pissing off... yes... honest people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Remote ID is for people who respect the law (Score:4, Interesting)
Even just being able to distinguish drones that are being operated in a legal fashion vs. illegal fashion is useful when you have very little time to respond to a potential emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
>Like all such laws and regulations, they're just there to collect a massive government database and strip away your rights
FTFY
Re: Remote ID is for people who respect the law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Those who want to do unsafe stunts and use their drones illegally will purchase one without it, or disable it using one of the many videos showing how to do it that will inevitably pop up on Youtube.
Or spoof it so that somebody else gets in trouble, not you.
I particularly like the part about it telling the feds where the "operator" is standing. There's a few people I'd like to get rid of.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who want to do unsafe stunts and use their drones illegally will purchase one without it
Actually no, the overwhelming part of the population doesn't just recklessly do illegal things because they want to, and the fact that you think they do makes you a particularly dangerous idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Remote ID is for people who respect the law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remote ID is for people who respect the law (Score:5, Informative)
No, not like ADSB.
ADSB is a aviation safety technology which allows air-traffic control to safely route aircraft in the skies and also allows autoimated anti-collision (TCAS) systems to help pilot avoid potential mid-air collisions with other aircraft.
By comparision Remote ID is nothing more than (as the FAA puts it) an electronic ID tag. The FAA has clearly stated that Remote ID will not be used to avoid mid-air collisions and plays no part in the air-traffic control system. Besides, since it uses low-power Bluetooth or Wifi signals, the effective range is just a few hundred yards or a mile at most.
By comparison, the ADSB system uses very powerful transmitters and has an effective range of hundreds of miles.
Re: (Score:2)
More like AIS.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's fairly easy to not only identify a car operating without license plates, but it's also fairly easy to associate the operator of the vehicle with the vehicle violating license plate laws. And it's also fairly easy to stop that car.
Now try with a drone that only transmits information in an EM spectrum with the operator being ... somewhere and the only way to stop it is to shoot it out of the sky.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the idea that some almost collide with planes. First they must be some low flying planes
Yes, this is what happens when planes take off or land. They are low flying at that point.
and second a collision with a large leaf will take out a drone let alone a plane and they are ultralight by necessity. What are they worried about here; a small scuff?
How about getting sucked into the engine of a jet during landing or take off? Even a minor collision with a Cessna type plane could send the drone through the
Geometry is a bitch (Score:2)
Transponders work on aircraft because they almost always fly high enough to have direct line of sight to an ATC radar which sends to interrogation pulse and listens for the squawk code.
Most toy airplanes fly low and behind obstructions like buildings, trees, power lines, fences, and terrain. In fact, when they fly that way, they're most likely to be doing something "unsafe" but they'll also be invisible to anything other than a cop trying to point a man-portable interrogation gizmo...meaning he has to be ca
Perhaps you could clarify (Score:3)
> Most toy airplanes fly low and behind obstructions like buildings, trees, power lines, fences, and terrain. In fact, when they fly that way, they're most likely to be doing something "unsafe"
It almost sounds like you're saying that most people flying around their backyard are doing something unsafe. Perhaps you could clarify?
The statute gives FAA authority over the airspace that can be used for interstate transport of commercial cargo (under the interstate commerce clause). It bugs me a bit that the F
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Perhaps you could clarify (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Court cases have established that the FAA have control over the airspace right down to the ground -- in your yard!
Re: (Score:3)
The statute gives FAA authority over the airspace that can be used for interstate transport of commercial cargo (under the interstate commerce clause). It bugs me a bit that the FAA has decided to ignore that and unlawfully control what you do behind your fence.
The statute gives the FAA authority over all airspace (there is no statutory limit).
Caselaw has limited that to basically anything above "what your property needs".
As to the authority via the Commerce Clause, that's definitely an open interpretational question, but let's also be real here- you're not really arguing in good faith.
The FAA isn't trying to regulate what you do behind your fence. They're trying to regulate what you do above your fence, and over your neighbors yard, and in public airspace.
I
Re:Geometry is a bitch (Score:4, Interesting)
but it's not going to be the cure-all solution to idiots with toy helicopters
The RC helicopter guys are the ones who have suffered the most. These guys have been around for decades, have kept to their clubs, have acted like real pilots, and they're being treated like a floor mat now that every zoomer and its hipster girlfriend can buy a DJI Mavic knock-off for the cost of a vivano smoothie.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure people felt the same way when Ford started mass producing cars. Used to be able to park anywhere, store the gasoline safely at home. Now you have to have a licence just to drive one! And your car must be licensed with the number displayed on the front. All because the youth of today are buying these factory made Rolls knock-offs.
Re: (Score:2)
Drones are getting more capable all the time. We have already seen airports shut down by them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in all fairness, as we've seen in the currently ongoing war, consumer drones can actually be weaponized and used effectively for killing people.
Re: (Score:3)
"Already, several companies have announced their intention to build networks of receivers that will create a realtime database of all drone activity in the USA, showing the positions of the drones and their operators and flagging any non-compliant craft. "
There is a real SDR device out there called a Kracken. It's relatively cheap (a bit over $400 USD) and there is also some software for it that uses ambient radio signals to "paint" the sky with a passive radar picture.
Thos companies will have a VERY clear
Re: (Score:2)
Ah I see you're going for the defence where you need to convince the judge that you're an idiot. In fairness it will probably work if the judge already knows you.
Re: (Score:2)
Emphasis on public. Keep reading until it clicks.
What next? Pre-crime? You want to live in a Hollywood scifi horror society?
Oh, for sure. First step, the FAA regulates the airspace, and next we have fucking Minority Report.
serviscope is correct. You are indeed an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
These aren't transponders. They just broadcast their location, and their pilot's location, over wifi periodically. I'm sure cops will have some custom doohickey to pick it up, but you could do so with a $10 Raspberry Pi or a $5 ESP32. Sure you have to be within wifi range of the drone, but that's typically 2-15 km.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm sure cops will have some custom doohickey to pick it up"
Actually, there are already smartphone apps that allow *ANYONE* to pick up these signals and that's the problem.
Anyone with the app on their phone can now track down the operator of a drone and mug them or worse -- while they're distracted flying their drone. At the very least the mugger will know that they've got:
1. a drone
2. a smartphone
3. probably wallet
When a potential victim is focused on the sky while flying their drone they become a very
Re: (Score:2)
If it was only law enforcement that could pick up these signals then there'd be much less of a problem.
I'm not sure I believe your so-named drone operators agree with this part.
Ultimately though, there are spaces you're allowed to operate the drone without any Remote ID.
This requirement is only there if you're operating them places where you're likely being an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
All laws start out as "this is just for safety because of a few assholes and doesn't apply to nice people" and grow into full control and surveillance.
Oh, I disagree entirely.
They absolutely apply to nice people. Nice people just aren't typically impacted by them.
And generally, only disingenuous shitstains try to make that argument. The jury's still out as to whether or not that's your aim, here.
For example, income taxes were originally sold as only the super wealthy will pay them.
Utterly false.
Pre-16th amendment taxes applied to incomes of $600 or more, or a little more than a Private in the US Army made.
They certainly didn't apply to the poor, or lower end of the working class, but the super-rich? Fucking nonsense.
Post-16th amendment
Re: (Score:2)
Pre-16th amendment taxes applied to incomes of $600 or more, or a little more than a Private in the US Army made.
$600 then was over $200,000 in today's dollars. A private made less than $180/yr.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation math doesn't work that cleanly. It would be cool if it did, though.
I went re-looking for the number I found the first time, and I couldn't. So I'm going to concede that point.
So, let's reframe.
It's about half what a First Lieutenant made.
But where it gets really cool is Lieutenant General.
According to your inflation math, The Union paid their Generals nearly $3,000,000 a year, and the Confederacy paid theirs a meager $1,200,000.
So no, $600 a year wasn't $200k.
Not even fucking close.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped reading right there. Next time try behaving and sounding like an adult if you want an adult conversation.
Na, you didn't. You just got called out on being full of shit, and had no retort to that. I mean, I suppose you could have tried to pile more horseshit on top, but I think it's pretty clear that wasn't going to get you very far, and you knew that.
If you just want to trade ad hominem there are many others here who are super into that.
Don't conflate an insult, particularly in indirect insult, with ad hominem argumentation. It's fallacious ;)
Have a nice day.
Oh, absolutely. Keep spreading misinformation across the web, you internet freedom fighter.
Re: (Score:2)
A few months back PBS/NOVA did a documentary called Great American Airplane Race.
There is a segment where they talk about a next gen automated ATC system... Specifically with commercial drones (autopilot air taxis anyone?) in mind;
Defined air lanes, ground side beacons/markers/guide posts, drones communicating all of the information listed in this article both to the ground control stations AND to one another as well as information about adjacent aircraft they're communicating with.
I can see where anything
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if the FAA think this is going to discourage "bad actors" from using drones for nefarious purposes then they're incredibly naive.
Bad actors will either clone IDs or (more likely) simply use stolen drones. So then you have THREE problems:
1. bad things are done by bad people because Remote ID does not stop anything bad from happening
2. innocent parties (those whose drones were stolen) are incriminated by the RemoteID system
3. moredrones will be stolen because bad actors won't want to use their own ones
Wait until they try to regulate sub 250g (Score:2)
These days you can buy very fast and capable quad copters that are sub 250g with very good video downlink. So if the concern was ever privacy, these regs don't do anything about it.
For those wanting to try the hobby, there are now a lot of sub 250g aircraft are pretty fun. And you can fly them in a gymnasium. The technology has progressed quite rapidly. If I want to introduce someone to the hobby, I'm going to start with sub 250g airplanes. Fun to fly, teaches some basics like orientation, and are pretty
Re: (Score:2)
>"These days you can buy very fast and capable quad copters that are sub 250g with very good video downlink. So if the concern was ever privacy, these regs don't do anything about it."
I don't know, but I think the primary concern is safety. The mass of the flying object links to that pretty directly. The more it weighs, the more damage it can do when it falls out of the sky and/or into a person, car/motorcycle, window, power line, helicopter, bicycle, another drone, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Hogwash. People have been flying kites for centuries that weigh more than 250 grams (8.8 oz) without people running around shouting "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Also, there have been some 240/250 gram Frisbees that, while very large for a Frisbee, didn't cause calls to the FAA about Unmanned Flying Objects threatening citizens. www.amazon.com/250_Gram_Frisbee [amazon.com]
This is simple paranoia about flying multi-rotor toys. RC hobbyists have been flying radio controlled airplanes for decades without peo
Re: Wait until they try to regulate sub 250g (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... and the operator of that drone was quickly located and dealt with. So what additional protection is this Remote ID system supposed to provide?
It seems we have all the tech we need to deal with the occasional errant drone without forcing drone pilots to advertise their location to every would-be mugger and Karen within a mile or so.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA is way outside of their jurisdiction trying to regulate toys in sub 400ft altitudes.
They're not.
Class G airspace is still airspace. It is designated Uncontrolled, but that does not mean out of jurisdiction.
They control airspace above 500, except near airports.
Flatly incorrect.
There are already enough laws to control using toys in public parks and other spaces.
Maybe, but that doesn't make your claim any more correct.
In 2012, there was a specific cutout in the FAA Reauthorization Act for model aircraft that drones were believed to exist under.
In the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act, that section was repealed, meaning the FAA has the de facto and de jure statutory authority to regulate your drone, period, full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The 500ft thing was not brought up, because it's flatly untrue. The person you are replying to is talking out of their ass.
Caselaw establishes Congressional authority in delegating jurisdiction to be "all navigable airspace", and Congress has designated that to include "airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft".
With the advent of ultralights and helicopters, this is broadly interpreted to be reducible to "FAA authority extends
I call BS (Score:2)
From the text added by Slashdot editors:
They quote Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of America's new UFO-tracking agency, as saying that "Some of these things almost collide with planes. We see that on a regular basis...."
What a load of bullshirt!
The number of instances where drones "almost collide with planes" is incredibly low. Every year there's over US$400m worth of damage caused by *actual* collisions between birds and aircraft. In the entirity of history there have been less than 10 evidenced instan
Re: (Score:2)
he said near collisions, not actual collisions. and there are more and more drones every year, and not having a single loss of life *yet* is not the compelling argument you think it is
and you can't make birds to install transmitters on their offspring, but if we could, we most likely would
so ... not great arguments there
So if I want an untraceable drone (Score:2)
I just replace the brains with an Arduino board, using code from an online repository. Not quite as easy as off-the-shelf, but if I want to do something illegal it's not exactly an insurmountable hurdle.
The only way to stop illegal drone use is ubiquitous anti-drone hardware rolled out wherever you have a problem. And most anti-drone systems are problematic because they end up being kinetic weapons that drop their targets on whatever is beneath them.
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to seeing how your fight against the law goes, though
Re: (Score:2)
I just replace the brains with[...]
Well done, and you can also shoplift candy bars to your heart's content if you don't get caught, too.
I guess we should just legalise theft because not all thieves are caught and it's quite easy to get away with it.
Huh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely when the Federal government saw what citizens were doing with them in Hong Kong and Ukraine.
There's a reason they broadcast the operator's position once a second
Re: (Score:2)
Rest assured that if they're used in that particular fashion, the first thing that happens is that this broadcast stops.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, Congress obtained the authority in ~1946, with US v. Causby.
The FAA didn't exist yet, of course, but that doesn't matter.
The FAA has *always* been so empowered, excepting a period from 2012 - 2018.
The 2012 FAA Reauthorization Act (S.336, IIRC) specifically prohibited the regulation of "model aircraft" which was interpreted to include drones.
That section was repealed in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act.
Meanwhile, airplanes are NOT required to do this (Score:2)
Ironically, small general aviation aircraft are NOT required to carry an ADS-B beacon that transmits their location. Only in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the pilot position for automated drones? (Score:2)
Re: All America... (Score:2)
Re: All America... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"All America...or just USA?""
"America" *is* the USA. The terms are interchangeable and synonymous. Hence, citizens of [The United States of] America are "Americans." Non-USA options include:
* North America
* South America
* The Americas
Re: (Score:2)
America = is the combination of North and South America. It's not "Americas" in any place outside the US when you come to formal terms.
Re: (Score:2)
>"It's ofensive/agressive for people, like me, that are "Americans" but not from US...
No, it is offensive only to people who are LOOKING TO BE OFFENDED, which is a major problem nowadays.
If you are not a citizen of the USA, you are not an American. You might be a North American, South American, or live in the Americas. Accept it and move on, or die early from needless, ridiculous stress.
Re: All America... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the FAA can only regulate the parts of America that were Made Great Again(TM) in 2016.
Re:All America... (Score:5, Informative)
Fuck off retard. America is the United States of America. I live in Canada and nobody here, NOBODY, considers themselves American. We all classify Americans and coming from the USA. Very rarely, and only when necessary, we might call ourselves North Americans, but more likely we would say if necessary, we live in North America. We are Canadians, and Americans are Americans. Mexicans live in Mexico, and etc. on down south. So go away with your stupid pedantic foolishness.
Re: (Score:3)
Ad hominem fallacy [wikipedia.org]?
You used a question mark, so I'll answer that for you.
To be an ad hominem fallacy, they would have had to have used the specified claim, "that you're a retard" as a point in their argument.
Therefor, the statement, "Fuck off retard" is merely an insult in this context, and says nothing at all about their argument.
However, to discount their argument based on it would indeed be a fallacy on your part.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you are such a fucking tool. Get a fucking life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this is so good for drones, it really makes you wonder why the government doesn't force this on every single vehicle sold in USA. Track them! Track them all! Further, the driver of a parked vehicle should also be tracked when they aren't at the vehicle, because they were the one responsible for parking the vehicle.
For some reason this total and complete lack of privacy (and safety) would never be accepted by the public for cars, but for drones it somehow is so very different. Because it's the FAA and, you know, think of the children and the children's parents and everyone else that a drone could possibly annoy in some way.
Cars have license plates, which allows police to look up the owner. They also - when observed - have a known direction, speed, and altitude. The location of the operator is also known when the car is in use, and if the operator isn't present the car can be dealt with anyways if it causes a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason this total and complete lack of privacy (and safety) would never be accepted by the public for cars
Your car literally identifies itself uniquely in a database with the owners full details for the authority to verify from both the front and back.
Are you trolling or just really really stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Your car literally identifies itself uniquely in a database with the owners full details for the authority to verify from both the front and back.
Are you trolling or just really really stupid?
If the contention is you are really really stupid if you can see the difference between a passive ID plate and an RF transmitter that sends a signal that can be picked up miles away then thegarbz is calling everyone really really stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is so good for drones, it really makes you wonder why the government doesn't force this on every single vehicle sold in USA.
No, it doesn't. Government doesn't force things that are too unpopular, it affects reelection campaigns. If it cannot manufacture consent then it just keeps whittling away until it can.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason this total and complete lack of privacy (and safety) would never be accepted by the public for cars, but for drones it somehow is so very different. Because it's the FAA and, you know, think of the children and the children's parents and everyone else that a drone could possibly annoy in some way.
At least the FAA provides temporary privacy IDs for aircraft who do not wish their itinerary to be broadcasted all over the Internet by crowd sourced networks of ADS-B receivers.
Apparently the same is too much to ask for kids flying their toy around in the field.
Re: (Score:2)
How does the FAA regulate airspace below 500 feet and far from airports?
Because it is explicitly authorized to in the FAA (re)Authorization Act.
What on Earth makes you think they only have jurisdiction above 500 feet?
There is no statutory limit to their authority over the NAS in Title 39, it's only established be caselaw, which has established it to "literally anything above what your property needs for its structures"
Re: (Score:2)
God given rights. (Score:2)
And no, guns are not a god given right.
ORLY? The founders said they were. Read their writings about it.
The 2nd amendment is abused.
The 1st amendment is abused. (It has several parts, and each of them is abused.)
The 4th amendment is abused.
The 5th amendment is abused. (I could go on.)
So what? It's not a RIGHT if government officials can take it away. (Even after mumbling about how a few people abuse it - and you might join them.)
Your hands could be abused: To steal things, hit, stab, or choke people,
Re: (Score:2)
Drone and radio-controlled model aircraft users must register with the FAA [unless they weigh less than 0.55 pounds], sit (and pass) a knowledge test and soon have this Remote ID technology installed on all their craft.
Sounds like a good idea for gun ownership, to ensure idiots and maniacs can't get something that is so easy to kill with. If it reasonable for a drone, it's reasonable for a gun.
Remote ID aside, we do all this stuff in California, and we still have gun crime.
Re: (Score:2)
By September 16, 2023, all U.S. hobbyists must fit "broadcast remote ID" modules to their RC model aircraft or older drones which also make them Remote ID compliant
HTH HAND