NoFlyZone.org Aims To Keep the Airspace Above Your Home Drone-Free 168
Zothecula writes About the only thing growing quicker than the number of privately owned drones is the level of concern surrounding them. Questions of privacy and how these things can be regulated are pretty well-founded, but are so far yet to be met with any convincing answers. NoFlyZone.org may go some way to providing a solution, allowing users to enter their address to create drone-free zones in the airspace over their homes.
Add you details? (Score:1)
Why? what do you have to hide?
Personal info? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to us why we should not expect these guys or their business partners to profit off our personal information.
Of course I haven't read the article or looked at their web site, but what private information are they collecting? Assuming you have to own the land to be able to establish a no-fly zone, your name and address are already publicly-available information.
Re: (Score:2)
No. [wikipedia.org]
The domain extension was originally created for non-profits, but this designation no longer exists and today it is commonly used by schools, open-source projects, and communities as well as by for-profit entities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Personal info? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have any authority to do that? (Score:2)
The FAA has sole purview over airspace rights. If the aircraft is high enough according to FAA rules (which of as of yet specify manned vehicles only, at a minimum of 500 feet) then it is outside of your, as a landowner, ability to control. These people are not the ones to lobby; the FAA needs to create rules for drone use at low-altitudes to remove the current ambiguity.
Re: (Score:3)
Users visit NoFlyZone.org and enter their home address along with some basic information. This data is then processed by the NoFlyZone.org database, which registers the address and its GPS coordinates. This information is then relayed to drone manufacturers to create a geofence around the home and render their products unable to fly over the property.
They're asking for manufacturers to voluntarily respect this list and disable their drones from flying in those zones. Now, whether this will work is another discussion.
Re:Manufacturers Restrict their Products (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what is being suggested is that every drone carry with it every person's address that doesn't want a drone above it?
Doesn't that sound a whole lot like a list of addresses the police would love to have? And if you sign up for this list, then somebody who uses a drone for nefarious purposes will respect this address, as opposed to (say) disabling the GPS receiver?
This is a great idea, because we know that you never get unsolicited cell phone calls from Credit Card Services or "Hi, Seniors..."
This is without a doubt the most ridiculous solution to a problem that doesn't exist that I have ever come across.
So, let me state the obvious, just in case someone has missed it: That genie is out of the bottle, and there's no putting her back in.
Re: (Score:2)
With many drones disabling the GPS receiver is either [a] difficult or [b] strongly ill-advised (as it's used to make station-keeping in a breeze much easier and automatic as opposed to a constant fight against air current).
Re: (Score:2)
Only some companies' software honors no fly zones. DJI Naza flight controller is one of them. The open source Pixhawk does not.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, neither am I, with a 6 pound piece of metal with propellers spinning at 3000+ RPM right above my head, controlled by someone who doesn't have the single clue of how to crab for a cross-wind landing.
How does crabbing for a landing affect their ability to fly above you? Or is this just an unrelated skill you are demanding as an example? If they are at 100'+ over your property and headed past (not circling), their complete ignorance of aerodynamics will have no effect on you.
Re: (Score:2)
How does crabbing for a landing affect their ability to fly above you? Or is this just an unrelated skill you are demanding as an example? If they are at 100'+ over your property and headed past (not circling), their complete ignorance of aerodynamics will have no effect on you.
Very simple, they will not be able to properly control the vehicle. And let me give you an example.
I recently bought a small quadcopter with a camera (Hubsan x4). I flew it around my neighborhood a bit and one of my neighbors liked it and bought one as well. He crashed it on the first day, simply because he could not understand that the wind was blowing his precious helicopter away and he had to adjust for the wind direction. His lack of a basic understanding of aerodynamics and the forces of nature in fl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you used it as an unrelated example of their ability to to control the device, rather than complaining about the actual problem, people who can't control their devices.
Yes. My point is that people who just go out and buy a drone without any form of training have no clue about the aerodynamics of flight, and thus are not qualified to fly an aircraft. The only difference between someone remotely piloting an aircraft and someone behind the controls of an aircraft is that if the first one fucks up, he doesn't die, but someone else may.
That doesn't mean that I agree with the FAA's proposal to have people earn a real pilot's certificate. Some instruction like this [modelaircraft.org] would proba
Re: (Score:2)
Well, neither am I, with a 6 pound piece of metal with propellers spinning at 3000+ RPM right above my head, controlled by someone who doesn't have the single clue of how to crab for a cross-wind landing.
So crabbing is irrelevant. RPM and weight are irrelevant.
The only point you made was that you don't know how to make a point.
Re: (Score:2)
So crabbing is irrelevant. RPM and weight are irrelevant.
No, not entirely. At some point you'll have to land the aircraft. And if the operator fails, the aircraft will land itself. Potentially on my head. Potentially with propellers spinning at 3000+ RPM. Crabbing is relevant, and so are RPM and weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reasonable suspician list (Score:2)
DEA and NSA may use the list as possible points of interest on planning drone routes over cities. They wouldn't have any legal or technological restrictions on airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that sound a whole lot like a list of addresses the police would love to have?
Why, are you worried that the police will come arrest you in the middle of the night just because you don't want amateur pilots sending drones over your house?
Re: (Score:2)
All the recent scandals involving the government violating civil rights (IRS political targeting, NSA/parallel construction, refusal to come clean on 'stingray' cellphone interception, etc etc) give legitimate and logical reason for serious concerns by law-abiding citizens concerning how and for what purposes government will employ this technology against them.
Strat
Re:Do they have any authority to do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the TFA. They still don't have the authority to do jack-diddly-squat. They got a list of people who don't want drones, and they're prepared to write sternly worded letters to manufacturers, woo hooooo. The FAA has actual, legitimate regulatory authority. One of these people is worth writing to, and the other is not.
Re:Do they have any authority to do that? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a "solution" that only a libertarian would think is workable. Instead of enforceable government regulation, it's a voluntary opt-in system run by a private entity, which will work because all people are "rational actors" who will see that their self-interest is served by it. Or something.
Re: (Score:2)
which will work because all people are "rational actors" who will see that their self-interest is served by it. Or something.
Yep, only in this case only hopes, dreams, and fairy sprinkles make adding burdensome GPS + dynamically updating blacklisting (is that even technically feasible?) sound good for the self-interests of a rationally-acting drone manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
which will work because all people are "rational actors" who will see that their self-interest is served by it. Or something.
Yep, only in this case only hopes, dreams, and fairy sprinkles make adding burdensome GPS + dynamically updating blacklisting (is that even technically feasible?) sound good for the self-interests of a rationally-acting drone manufacturer.
In this context the only reason they would have to comply is to avoid more stringent regulation by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings us back around to my original suggestion: forget these guys, and lobby the FAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Third, what does the drone do if it's heading towards a no-fly zone? Turn around? What if it can't avoid entering a no-fly zone?
That's easy, you make each no-fly zone 30 miles wide.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/28/white-house-drone-technological-fix-phantom-menace-no-fly-zones [theguardian.com]
"DJI’s new Phantom drones will ship with the update installed, and owners of older devices will have to download it in order to receive future updates. The no-fly zone over the capital will extend for a 15.5-mile radius."
Re:Do they have any authority to do that? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that NoFlyZone is just a front for a bunch of lawyers looking to file a class action lawsuit. Just look at their methodology. They gather a bunch of names and submit this to the manufacturers of these drones. Then if the manufacturers don't somehow comply (I'm not even sure how they're supposed to), then that opens them up to a class action from said requesters.
Reminds me of those groups in NYC that lawyers used to hire to go around and document cracks in the city sidewalks. Ostensibly they were supposed to be serving the public good. In actuality, they were just a front that was providing a database for lawyers to use to sue the city anytime someone tripped on a crack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps it's funded by the NSA. "Let's get a list of addresses where people want to hide from surveillance."
You mean a list of people stupid enough to think that the federal government would be bound by this list?
Re:Do they have any authority to do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea is riddled with problems just waiting to happen. How will they know I live where I say I live? Are they going to verify that?
What's stopping me registering the property of a drone operator so they can't fly in their own property?
What's stopping me entering my address, and all of my neighbours?
If a drone still flies over my property, who do I sue?
If the last owner of my house made it a no-fly zone, but I want to fly drones in my back yard, how do I remove my house from the list?
What's stopping me asking to remove other peoples' house from the list?
Does having a drone flying one foot outside of my property boundary really differ from a drone flying one foot inside my property boundary? It can still see over my property.
Re: (Score:2)
If a drone still flies over my property, who do I sue?
Follow the money:
- Drone operator: nope
- Noflyzone: nope
- Manufacturer of drone: Maybe, unless it's one of those DIY contraptions
- City council, for failing to provide an appropriate local ordinance: nope... still waiting on approval for that permit to build an outhouse, so better not tick them off
- Smith & Wesson, for failing to provide a warning that shooting at drones presents a hazard to surrounding wildlife and/or neighbours
- Owner of the land from which the drone took off: jackpot!
damn web "developers" (Score:2)
for flying pests.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA has sole purview over airspace rights. If the aircraft is high enough according to FAA rules (which of as of yet specify manned vehicles only, at a minimum of 500 feet) then it is outside of your, as a landowner, ability to control.
You can effectively maintain control of your air rights by constructing tall obstacles. The FAA only has authority over airspace, and if you build into the air, then the blocked off area is not air space. Build a tall antenna or projection, and all aircraft are require
Re: (Score:2)
There are some limitations created by physics
And by zoning boards.
And by covenants.
Re: (Score:2)
There's something in the interpretation of the reg to prevent that, specifically. The AOPA paraphrasing is as such: . A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example.
Re: (Score:2)
There's something in the interpretation of the reg to prevent that, specifically. The AOPA paraphrasing is as such
Do you have a citation on that? I can't find a case where someone built something that was deemed to be a "spite pole" and had it taken down by force or was ordered to take it down or sued/penalized over it.
As far as I know.... you can build anything you want to any height, so long as the engineering is sound and safe -- it's not a living structure and no permits required, and/or you
Re: (Score:2)
Google is shooting from orbit, well outside the purview of the usual "airspace" rules.
And this isn't about public airspace (ie, over public property) this is about private airspace (ie, over private property and below the 500' threshold).
"Privately owned drones"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in my day, we called them RC helicopters.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between a drone and an RC aircraft is that a drone pilots itself. The operator gives it high level commands such as "go to coordinates X,Y at altitude Z and take a photo, then return to base" and it executes them. It doesn't requite interactive piloting like an RC aircraft does.
Some drones do allow for interactive piloting, but it's still not the same as being fully in control. It's just issuing high level commands in real-time.
As such, it is possible to build no-fly zones into the drone's fi
Re: (Score:2)
Back in my day, we called them RC helicopters.
Back in your day they weren't able to be flown completely autonomously and or with remote FPV feed allowing you to fly them way out of sight.
The reason they are now called drones, is because they now and in some definitions back in your day too, fitted the definition of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to say that if you are in an area where it is acceptable to use shotguns (300ft from a home, in the county is the rule in NC) then yes, excellent target practice. I keep the shorter military/police grade buckshot in my combat shotgun, holds around 9 or 10 shells. But in all seriousness, these will be getting shot down, as not everyone cares what the law is, and will just pull out a gun and shoot it down even if they live in the city.
Re: (Score:2)
The fuckwads are the elected officials that are allowing drones to fly over your house. Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither.
Good luck with that (Score:4, Informative)
the address and its GPS coordinates ... is then relayed to drone manufacturers to create a geofence around the home and render their products unable to fly over the property.
So we're going to count on the manufacturers to voluntarily add a feature to their drones that makes them unable to fly in a huge list of tiny spaces? Oh okay. This should solve everything. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Funny)
It's quite possibly the dumbest idea I've ever heard. While we're at it, let's create a list of houses that don't want to be robbed. Or countries that don't want to be invaded. Or people who only want to be spoken to gently.
Bullshit ... (Score:2)
"Oh noes, teh website says we can't fly hear".
Does anybody think that will work?
Voluntary compliance and self regulation by corporations is never gonna happen. And the people who are using these things for shady purposes won't give a crap. The people who use them for shady purposes who work for the government definitely won't.
In fact, I predict a bunch of drones explicitly flying over those homes just to send a big "f- you" and see what is there.
They'll adhere with things which could bring the government
Unless NoFLyZone is part of the FAA (Score:2)
Then exactly what authority do they have to enforce this?
Re: (Score:3)
None at all .. this is what happens when groups of corporations try to stave off being regulated under the myth that they can, and will, self-regulate in any meaningful way.
This is pretty much an empty promise, likely backed by an EULA they can change at any time, and which will give them access to your information they can do anything they want to with.
My read of TFA is "this is utterly meaningless drivel".
There is no authority, just an empty promise by corporations -- it's a PR stunt, nothing more.
You mig
Re: (Score:3)
Your reasoning is backwards. You think that without the FAA, corporations could do whatever they want over your property and the FAA protects you from big, evil corporations. But that's not at all what has happened. Before regulation and the FAA (i.e., without the act establishing the FAA), corporations couldn't legally fly over your land at all, because historically, you owned all the airspace over your property, and you could enforce those rights in a court of law.
But Congress passed laws that effectively
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How would I enforce those rights in court? Sue every airline that sends a plane over my property? What evidence do I have to present to show that the plane was in fact over my property and not my neighbors'? What do I get out of that day in court? Filing expenses back? Lawsuits are a really bad way to enforce things like that; it's sort of like throwing exceptions to break out of normal loops.
Government regulation means that somebody else is able to enforce the rules, and that it doesn't matter whic
Re: (Score:2)
What's the real difference between government regulation that restricts aerial activity by regulating such activity, and government regulation that says that you have a right to interfere with anything over your property, no matter how high up?
Also, do you realize what's involved in a lawsuit? It requires time and attention from the court system, which needs to get money to function somewhere. Not only does it have to make rulings, it has to have ways to enforce them, such as taking money from bank acc
Re: (Score:2)
First, I own some land. I can reasonably control what's going on within a few meters of the surface. I can't possibly control 500m up. The only way I can do that is to have something like the government do the enforcement for me.
Second, you said "The existence of the FAA and their regulations is precisely what is preventing things from working that way.", despite the fact that it worked that way here. We are in the FAA's jurisdiction here, and that didn't prevent homeowners from getting free or subsi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's two principal problems with do not call lists:
1) There are usually so many holes and exemptions in them as to render them useless
2) The people violating it are probably knowingly scamming you, already breaking the law, and doing it from outside your country
The exemptions in 1) to give businesses an exemption to do caller ID spoofing, so they could use off-
What a wonderful idea! (Score:2)
I'm sure this will work just as well, if not better, than the national do not call list for telemarketers.
Voluntary participation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Your shotgun has pretty limited range, and you are probably not sat on your porch waiting for drones all day and all night, posting to Slashdot over wifi.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His shotgun also spreads pellets throughout the sky with no idea where they might land -- might be OK if he lives in a rural area, but it's going to cause more problems than it solves in any populated area.
Bird shot falling from 100 ft would feel like heavy rain or maybe light hail at most. And I do live in a more spread out suburban area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but it seems that anything flying over private airspace is probably going to be fair game - at least until drone specific regulations come into effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, most towns have ordinances that prohibit discharging firearms within the city limits.
Re: (Score:2)
Its only trespassing if you have your land posted. If not, you have to ask the person (or object) to leave, if they don't you must have law enforcement remove them. You cannot physically remove someone, or that is battery or kidnapping.
Destroying someone's drone would be personal property destruction
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if it's that simple. The closest established legal situations are those addressing trespass by livestock and other personal items (kites or balls in the neighbor's lawn). You're not required to ask a drone to leave any more than you'd have to ask a baseball or cow to leave. Even if there's a camera, there's no reasonable assurance that talking to a drone will have any effect (though, it'd probably be a good idea to try it first). If the trespass is deliberate or expected to cause damage to you,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Unless you live on a farm and your nearest neighbor is a couple miles away, some of your shotgun pellets are going to end up landing on someone's house, or on them, and they'll get cranky about that and call the cops on you, who will be very cranky that you discharged a firearm in a residential area, likely take it away from you, and maybe take you away, too.
2. Destroying someone's drone is wasteful. Get a gun that sh
Re: (Score:2)
1. The effective range of a shotgun (ie the range at which the pellets would cause damage) is about 45 m [hypertextbook.com]. I can't find a freely accessible authoritative source for the maximum fallout range for shot, but all of the references to those that I can find say that the maximum travel distance of commonly used shot is about 300 m.
Discharging any firearms in city limits is dangerous and likely illegal, but shooting a shotgun on any sizable plot of land is not likely to cause damage to anyone else. Shotguns are regu
Re: (Score:2)
Laser and/or energy beam weapons
One word for you here: AIRCRAFT. I think the DHS would descend on you like a plague of locusts if an aircraft so much as reported seeing a laser beam in their line of sight.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid: Planning beats 'Drone Free' (Score:2)
Put a drone at 300 feet up or more and first of all, you won't likely see it and second it will be able to be over the neighboring property and still "surveil" you place even though it is not within the 'geo-fence.'
What is worse, a PI with a remote blimp and good cameras could do it for a long time at 500-1000 feet and you wouldn't have a clue if he was right over your house.
Future Support Call (Score:2)
"...OK, sir, I've found the problem. Your order was not delivered because we have your address listed as a no-fly zone."
"...that's right, sir."
"...all you need to do is go to 'no fly zone dot org' and click the large 'unregister' button at the top of the page. Once the change goes through, your order will be on its way."
"...it should only take about fifteen minutes to process the change, sir."
"I understand your frustration with the delay, sir, but unfortunately, noflyzone.org is a third party website, and t
Obvious answer: FBI/NSA/CIA honeypot (Score:2)
Anti-Aircraft provisions (Score:2)
If I sign up for this list, does that give me the right to operate Interceptor Drones and Airsoft AA Auto-Turret Miniguns on my property to enforce the No Fly Zone against any potentially bad actors?
Ripe for abuse (Score:3)
How do you opt out? (Score:2)
I am always suspicious of web sites that present only one interface -- something like "sign up here". No reading what the implications are first. No up-front disclosure of how to terminate the agreement if you change your mind. Basically, no information disclosed until you are already committed.
The web site appears to have a glaring omission. Provides for easy opt-in, but what about opt-out?
Suppose you own a property, and the previous owner was on the list. You buy a drone, and want to fly it on your o
I drink your milkshake (Score:2)
If there's a drone directly over my property it probably isn't looking into my home, but my neighbor's.
If someone wants to look into my windows with a drone they are probably going to do it from some distance away from my property, thus affording a better view. Unless you can get your neighbors signed up for this you're screwed.
No Streisand Zone (Score:2)
Yeah, this is going to be great. What's the betting someone finds a remote vulnerability and hacks these drones to invert the flag so they just fly straight to the nearest no-fly-zone?
If a hobby gets out of control (Score:2)
NoDeerZone.com (Score:2)
--NO-- DEER CROSSING!
I mean it, deer, you better not fucking cross here
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't supposed to be precise, this isn't supposed to be perfect, this probably isn't even expected to be even effective ... this is pure distraction on behalf of an industry group to make it look like they give a crap about your privacy.
This is the corporate equivalent of "I promise not to cum in your mouth".
It doesn't mean anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone come up with a way of attracting drones and then downing and taking possession of them?
Airsoft sniper rifles seem to be the chosen tool for drone stealing on a nearby park. I've always wondered how much do they break the drones. Maybe they only sell the cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Paintballs might also be effective since they are hard enough to do damage at reasonable distances.
Re: (Score:2)
Paintballs are visible. Airsoft shots can't be traced to the source.
Re: (Score:2)
'Confiscation zone'?
Sounds like a way to get yourself arrested or beat up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would calling a yard full of stolen bicycles a 'bike detention center' help?
There's your answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'Get off of my lawn!'
Leaving them unattended means you can get away with it, maybe. Abandoned is what you're looking for if you want to own it legally.
On topic: You already don't own the air above your property. Altitude cutoff varies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At a low enough altitude that might be true, depending on the definition of 'drone' you are using. But you likely can't legally discharge a weapon in city in the first place.
Discharging the firearm would be a much bigger legal problem for you.
In the country, all bets are off. Just make absolutely sure you are not looking at an ultralight. Serious federal time, just for taking a shot at an airplane.
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be like pick-pocketing the gun from a bank robber. Not legal, but not likely to get you in trouble with the police.
Re: (Score:2)
I would only consider a "No Fly Zone" for drones above my house if it specifically (and especially) includes Government Drones.
Even if such a law existed, the government would just break it. Probably through the "unless approved by a rubber-stamped warrant" clause of the law.
Re: (Score:2)