HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » DID YOU KNOW? When Obama ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:16 PM

DID YOU KNOW? When Obama signed the "FAA Modernization & Reform Act...

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)

(There are FOUR DIFFERENT ARTICLES...in this post. Something for Everyone...just so folks don't think this is some LONG READ to Slog Through...)



--------------------------------
FAA takes major step in expanding drone use in America
February 15, 2013 22:09ttp://rt.com/files/usa/news/faa-drone-aircraft-us-335/global-hawk-aer
vehicle (Reuters)
President Barack Obama has approved legislation that is expected to immediately accelerate the use of domestic surveillance drones within the United States.



On Thursday, Pres. Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, a bill that the Federal Aviation Administration’s AnneMarie Ternay describes as containing requirements for integrating unmanned aircraft systems and vehicles such as drones into the national airspace starting immediately.

With the president’s approval this week, the FAA has already begun soliciting proposals from cities across the country that are interested in becoming one of six soon-to-be established test sites where drones and UAVs will be sent into the sky as America takes the next step towards accepting the latest generation of aircraft.
The FAA says that locations in over 30 states have already showed interest in the program. Soon the agency will be tasked with picking a mere half-dozen locations so that drones can formally be introduced into official US airspace and not just strips of sky above designated areas.



Should the FAA stay on schedule, drones are likely to start flying regularly in the US by late 2015, and as many as 30,000 non-military UAVs are expected to be in the sky by the end of the decade. First, however, the FAA, drone builders and pilots will have to pick test sites to work out the kinks of a controversial aircraft.

“We expect to learn how unmanned aircraft systems operate in different environments and how they will impact air traffic operations,” FAA Chief Michael Huerta says in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. “The test sites will inform the agency as we develop standards for certifying unmanned aircraft and determine necessary air traffic requirements.”


Earlier in the week, the head of the FAA’s new drone department spoke at a convention outside of Washington, DC to discuss some concerns Americans have voiced en masse lately about bringing drones to inside of America’s borders. The US Department of Homeland Security already has an arsenal of the aircraft at its disposal for use in border-patrol missions, but small-time law enforcement agencies and other federal, state and educational institutions hope to have drones of their in the near future. So far, the FAA has received at least 81 applications from entities wishing to obtain drone licenses, including police departments and universities. What exactly law enforcement could do with a drone has some Americans concerns, though, an issue that was addressed at this week’s conference.

“We currently have rules in the books that deal with releasing anything from an aircraft, period. Those rules are in place and that would prohibit weapons from being installed on a civil aircraft,” Jim Williams of the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration Office said this week.

http://rt.com/usa/faa-drone-aircraft-us-335/


--------------------------



FAA Promises Privacy Standards For Domestic Drone

The Federal Aviation Administration Thursday announced that it will publicly develop privacy policies to cover the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), more often referred to as drones, in U.S. airspace.

"The FAA recognizes that increasing the use of raises privacy concerns," according a letter the agency sent this week to Marc Rotenberg, president of civil rights group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). "The agency intends to address these issues through engagement and collaboration with the public."

Privacy concerns surrounding the use of drones in American airspace have been intensifying since President Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (FMRA) into law in February 2012. The law includes the requirement that the FAA work toward "integrating unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the national airspace system (NAS)," and commence a test program at six different test ranges.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=1e7046f6-8fd9-495c-b3e5-18acf82c9a32

-----------------

How will Obama's cybersecurity directive affect you? See White House Cybersecurity Executive Order: What It Means.

After FMRA was signed into law, numerous consumer, technology and civil rights groups -- including the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and EPIC -- wrote to the FAA administrator, demanding that the agency develop privacy standards to cover the use of drones in U.S. airspace. "Drones greatly increase the capacity for domestic surveillance," they wrote, noting that the devices could carry not just high-resolution video cameras, but also infrared cameras, heat sensors and automated license plate scanners, and be programmed to track dozens of targets.

"Drones present a unique threat to privacy," they wrote. "Drones are designed to undertake constant, persistent surveillance to a degree that former methods of aerial surveillance were unable to achieve."

http://www.informationweek.com/security/privacy/faa-promises-privacy-standards-for-domes/240148698

-----------------
Obama signature could bring surveillance drones to your backyard
President Obama has signed legislation requiring the Federal Aviation …


by Timothy B. Lee - Feb 21 2012, 4:00pm EST
Law & Disorder / Civilization & Discontents
Obama signature could bring surveillance drones to your backyard
President Obama has signed legislation requiring the Federal Aviation …

by Timothy B. Lee - Feb 21 2012, 4:00pm EST
222

Louis UAV, a small unmanned drone
Photograph by Development Seed

President Obama last week signed the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act of 2012. Tucked inside the legislation is a provision that could have far-reaching implications in the coming decade: widespread civilian use of unmanned aerial drones.

Until now, the use of unmanned drones has been tightly regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration. Use has mostly been restricted to government agencies, and applications for private use were considered on a case-by-case basis. As of last summer, the FAA had only approved about 100 applications from private parties to fly unmanned drones.

But that's about to change. According to the New York Times, the new legislation mandates that the FAA begin allowing the use of small drones (under 4.4 pounds) by law enforcement within 90 days. And the agency must overhaul its drone regulations by September 30, 2015, including allowing more widespread use of drones by private parties.

The number of potential uses for aerial drones is almost endless, ranging from the life-saving to the creepy. Drones will allow search-and-rescue personnel to more quickly locate disaster victims. The Times interviewed a photographer, Daniel Gárate, who used a drone to make fly-by videos of high-end real estate to help their owners sell them. He shut down his operation after the Los Angeles police warned him that he was violating federal regulations, but he will likely be able to resume his business in 2015.

Other uses of the drones are likely to prove controversial. Gárate says he was asked to use his drone to conduct paparazzi surveillance of Kim Kardashian's wedding. He said no, but others are likely to say yes if drone regulations are liberalized. Google and Microsoft have already added high-resolution aerial photographs to their online maps, but their coverage is currently limited. Unmanned aerial photography will allow them to achieve much higher coverage at lower cost.


The American Civil Liberties Union has argued that law enforcement use of drones threatens Americans' privacy. A December report called for new regulations to ensure that drones are not abused.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/02/president-obama-last-week-signed/

40 replies, 2384 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply DID YOU KNOW? When Obama signed the "FAA Modernization & Reform Act... (Original post)
KoKo Feb 2013 OP
KoKo Feb 2013 #1
WillyT Feb 2013 #2
KoKo Feb 2013 #4
WillyT Feb 2013 #5
Recursion Feb 2013 #9
WillyT Feb 2013 #25
KoKo Feb 2013 #23
Bosonic Feb 2013 #14
onenote Feb 2013 #32
G_j Feb 2013 #3
Recursion Feb 2013 #6
WillyT Feb 2013 #7
Recursion Feb 2013 #8
WillyT Feb 2013 #10
Recursion Feb 2013 #11
WillyT Feb 2013 #12
Recursion Feb 2013 #13
WillyT Feb 2013 #17
Robb Feb 2013 #19
WillyT Feb 2013 #20
amandabeech Feb 2013 #27
DearHeart Feb 2013 #15
Recursion Feb 2013 #16
WillyT Feb 2013 #18
KoKo Feb 2013 #21
KoKo Feb 2013 #22
DearHeart Feb 2013 #35
KoKo Feb 2013 #37
Recursion Feb 2013 #38
Skip Intro Feb 2013 #34
appal_jack Feb 2013 #26
msanthrope Feb 2013 #24
amandabeech Feb 2013 #28
msanthrope Feb 2013 #30
amandabeech Feb 2013 #31
msanthrope Feb 2013 #36
amandabeech Feb 2013 #39
appal_jack Feb 2013 #40
KoKo Feb 2013 #29
TheMightyFavog Feb 2013 #33

Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:50 PM

1. This is interesting because its something I didn't know about...

and thought that others didn't either.

I think what I tried to do is balanced with articles. Select amongst them.

It's very concerning.... An issue that we Dems need to address.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:56 PM

2. Boys And Girls... It A Brave New World...

Well... maybe not so... brave.





Rec !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:03 PM

4. It's amazing that this passed...and I didn't see it posted here on DU...

what is going on here. We always got news here...often before the Media Whores (using the infamous site us older DU'ers remember) ...but now...I often feel "Late to the Party with current news!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:08 PM

5. For Some... If It Reflects Poorly On The Administration...

No posting it...



I want the good, the bad, and the ugly.

And I want it on the record... ESPECIALLY on DU.

Always remember... these people supposedly work for us.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:32 PM

9. Help me out here. How does this reflect badly on the administration?

This is a cheaper and safer way to do aerial surveillance than helicopters. Is it just the word "drone" that bothers you? We can call them something else if you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:13 PM

25. I Love Your Cost Cutting Measures In The Deaths Of Others...

You should hang out with Bowles-Simpson.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:58 PM

23. Okay...I guess I could see that..given the RW Repugs are so disgusting..

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

BUT!

Should we Democrats NOT POST what our President is signing into Law because we are so afraid of the Repugs?

Obama just WON a Second Term!

Isn't the TIME FOR FEAR...OVER? If not WHEN?

I really don't get that Obama would not want to see his legislation posted out there for transparency...because it might be seen as to "reflect badly on him?" He SIGNED IT...HE OWNS IT...and many DEMS really don't like it...so he's signaling us to DO SOMETHING to fight back if we don't like it.

It's DEMOCRACY at WORK. That's WHY many of us voted for the man.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:46 PM

14. This?

FAA seeks proposals to create six US drone test sites
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014399586

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:02 AM

32. Despite what the first article suggests, this law was enacted a year ago

It was signed into law on February 14, 2012 (even though the RussianTimes article is written in a way to suggest it was passed on February 14, 2013. (For what its worth, the day the President signed it was a Tuesday, not a Thursday.) It makes for a nicer story to say that the Alameda County Against Drones was meeting the same day that the President signed the law. But those two events took place 365 days apart.

I suspect that there are other errors in the article as well, but its the Russian Times and I'm not wasting any more time reading it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:01 PM

3. how cool! .. Not!

depressing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:10 PM

6. Awesome. Cheaper and safer than police helicopters

I understand the word "drone" shuts off DU's ability to be rational, but fortunately the country at large isn't like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:28 PM

7. So... The New U.S.A. Will Have Assault Weapons, Hand-Guns, And Drones On Every Street Corner ???

My country is GONE.



You know how we talk about the "mouth-breathers" ???

Time to start talking about the "pants wetters".

Amerika... a fucking armed fortress.

Yay...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:31 PM

8. What does this have to do with guns?

This is a small, unarmed remotely-piloted airplane so law enforcement can do aerial surveillance more cheaply and more safely than with helicopters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:34 PM

10. Um... Yeah...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:34 PM

11. So what's wrong with it?

Maybe I'm spending too much time in Europe (where surveillance is absolutely everywhere), but I'm just failing to see what's wrong with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:39 PM

12. Ask The People Of Pakistan How They Like Constant Drones Over Head

And then ask Americans if they would like the same.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:41 PM

13. Unbelievably dishonest

The fact that you can even make the comparison between armed drones and unarmed drones suggests to me you aren't being serious.

We currently have aerial surveillance overhead all the time, in the form of helicopters and airplanes. This is a cheaper and safer way to do this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:08 PM

17. Unarmed... So Far...

And you believe that in 2, 5, 10 years they won't be armed ???

And BTW... What are you so afraid of ?

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


Link: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:31 PM

19. How long until Google arms its self-driving cars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:37 PM

20. Good Point... But How Long Until The LAPD Decides It's "Cheaper" To Use Armed Drones ???

And is there any law that prevents that possibility ???


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:47 PM

27. Maybe you are spending too much time in Europe.

I haven't been to Europe recently due to family circumstances, but it from my reading, it seems that the level of surveillance of the general population it truly frightening.

What business is it of the government to know that on Saturday, I went to the supermarket and drove to a friend's house for dinner?

I accept that the supermarket may have surveillance cameras for purposes of preventing theft and specious slip-and-fall lawsuits, but I cannot accept that the government would have cameras constantly watching the parking lot or circling above the highway trying to photograph everyone's license plates from a drone-mounted camera. It's just creepy.

Fundamentally, my movements are not the government's business.

Perhaps that is an American characteristic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:49 PM

15. How long do you think, before these drones become armed?

I'm asking a serious question, not trying to be flippant. Not everyone who is against the drones program is irrational.

I understand that the drones would be safer than helicopters, not only for the public, but for the police themselves; however, there will come a day when someone in some agency (police, FBI, Homeland Security, DOD, DEA, etc.) decides that it would be safer to arm the drones instead of having armed officers. Also, when arming drones, won't there be a risk of "friendly fire" casualties, along with "collateral damage"? Friendly fire incidents don't just happen on battefields, they happen with armed police shooting innocent bystanders, right here in the US. So, I really want to know exactly how precise these drones are, and how good the "controllers/pilots/shooters" of the drones are, before these things ever get used over American soil.

Another thing, being that these are going to be operated by human beings, don't you think that, like other video surveillance, there might be a high risk for abuse?

There are many more ramifications that can come about through the use of these drones. We can't just get hung up on them being a "safer and cheaper" option; that would be incredibly short-sighted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearHeart (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:51 PM

16. Police helicopters and airplanes aren't armed

Why would they arm the drones? They haven't armed the helicopters and airplanes, and they've had them for over half a century now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:17 PM

18. Yet...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:49 PM

21. Yes...it's mentioned...that the next step might be arming...

Also..that they could be armed with Tazers, Canisters of Gas to subdue Protestors.

If they were just doing monitoring of a lost Alzheimer's Elder or looking for a Lost Child....then all of us would find their "extra ability and camera range" a Plus, along with looking for some Mass Murderer who escaped into an Undisclosed hard to find Mountainous or Heavily Wooded Location.

BUT...the ability to ABUSE DRONES ...is just staggering unless THE PEOPLE get involved with making FIRM LAWS against ABUSE!

That's what we are asking for and why some of us are Questioning!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:53 PM

22. Without New Laws to Govern how and what Drones Use...this could be ABUSE

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)

where the Drones could certainly be armed for CIVILIAN USE. They would NOT be under MILITARY CODE of LAW...but under whatever Police/State Laws of the State of Origin to do what they do.

How would you like that Renegade Arizona Sherriff ....to be Making the Laws about what Armaments Drones could Use on our "Cross the Boarder Immigrants?"

Shoot down anyone over that border with whatever means necessary and it spreads across the USA into the States who have enough RW'ers who would approve it in their Legislatures.

THAT's THE WORRY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:27 AM

35. They aren't "traditionally" armed like a military gunship, but they are looking to have armed police

officers positioned to be able to shoot. There are people out there, even a few here on DU, who wanted to send in the drones when Dorner was on the loose. If oeople here on DU are thinking about it, chances are someone else is also.

Check out this link:
this link is from 2005-they're definitely thinking about it.
[link:http://www.tylertech.net/images/Armed_police_helos_lyt.pdf|[link:http://www.tylertech.net/|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:27 AM

37. Tear Gas Canisters for crowd control? Subduing protesters?

It certainly would be more efficient...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:28 AM

38. It's preferable to you that be done by helicopter?

*shrug*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearHeart (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:12 AM

34. It is inevitable that they will be armed. It is a step in a direction.

A next step will be taken.

Nothing it static.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:36 PM

26. Hooray! More efficient unconstitutionality!!!1!!!

Let's take a look over at that quaint document, the US Constitution, and zero-in on the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Now, let's remind ourselves that the founders of this country insisted that the only legitimate use of state authority would flow from the powers explicitly granted to the government by this Constitution. Any power above and beyond what the Constitution outlined was illegal and immoral. So what does the 4th Amendment grant to the government, and what does it reserve specifically and inviolably to the People? Well for one, 'unreasonable' searches are off-limits, totally and completely. At least, that's how I read "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Is a broad-based surveillance of entire neighborhoods and cities a reasonable search? I think not. Reasonable searches require some suspicion of a crime before state searches become legitimate.

Reasonable searches also require warrants. Despite present courts' approval of warrantless wiretapping, stop & frisks, car searches based upon flimsy notions of 'probable cause,' etc., the Founders intended all searches to be preceded by a warrant, one that is based "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." There are few times when a drone survey of a whole city could or should receive a warrant: perhaps when a known violent criminal is on the run and mid-spree in that city, but hardly ever else.

I don't support police helicopters hovering over the ghetto all day either, but at least the costs and risks involved there provide some checks against their over use & abuse. Drones will open the floodgates to the panopticon. Being concerned about this is not unreasonable: your celebration of the surveillance state is.

Ignoring the Constitution is un-American and anti-Democratic.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:58 PM

24. The far right has black helicopters, the far left has drones. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:50 PM

28. Same idea. Neither groups wants the government watching their every move.

Personally, I don't want Piper Cubs patrolling the skies just looking for me or anyone else to do something "suspicious."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:02 PM

30. No--the common thread is paranoia. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:08 PM

31. Yes, and some people want the government to keep them safe from the "bad guys"

all the time.

I'm sure you know the Franklin quote.

We're on different sides of that one, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:33 AM

36. I I have no doubt that we are on opposite sides. The people who thought the black helicopters

we're coming to get them tended to arm themselves heavily and join right wing militia groups. The extreme left---the type that arms themselves with bomb making materials and go about vandalizing private property fantasize that drones are watching them.

I am not on either 1 of those sides. unfortunately we have an entire segment of DUers who think that they are under surveillance for their scribblings here. there's no reasoning with that level of paranoia.













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:59 AM

39. No, from your writings here, I'd suggest that you are in the group who is comfortable

with much more of a security state than most here.

I just like my privacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:50 PM

40. And the US has a Constitution...

Square your love for drones with the Constitution's 4th Amendment (as elaborated just above in post #26), and I'll begin to take our 'perspective' somewhat seriously.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:02 PM

29. "FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US" --Huff Post


FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US

JOAN LOWY | February 14, 2013 11:42 PM EST | AP
Compare other versions »

WASHINGTON — In a major step toward opening U.S. skies to thousands of unmanned drones, federal officials Thursday solicited proposals to create six drone test sites around the country.

The Federal Aviation Administration also posted online a draft plan for protecting people's privacy from the eyes in the sky. The plan would require each test site to follow federal and state laws and make a privacy policy publicly available.

Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a "surveillance society" in which the movements of Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities.


The military has come to rely heavily on drones overseas. Now there is tremendous demand to use drones in the U.S. for all kinds of tasks that are too dirty, dull or dangerous for manned aircraft. Drones, which range from the size of a hummingbird to the high-flying Globalhawks that weigh about 15,000 pounds without fuel, also are often cheaper than manned aircraft. The biggest market is expected to be state and local police departments.

The FAA is required by a law enacted a year ago to develop sites where civilian and military drones can be tested in preparation for integration into U.S. airspace that's currently limited to manned aircraft.

The law also requires that the FAA allow drones wide access to U.S. airspace by 2015, but the agency is behind schedule, and it's doubtful it will meet the deadline, the Transportation Department's inspector general said in a report last year.


MUCH MORE AT:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130214/us-drones-at-home/?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=politics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:11 AM

33. If you're a chopper pilot working for a TV news station, I hope you're nervous....

I can see TV stations replacing their choppers with UAVs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread