Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Transportation

America Proposes New Rules Requiring Drones to Broadcast Their Location Online (arstechnica.com) 120

LetterRip (Slashdot reader #30,937) shares a report from Ars Technica: More than 34,000 people have deluged the Federal Aviation Administration with comments over a proposed regulation that would require almost every drone in the sky to broadcast its location over the Internet at all times. The comments are overwhelmingly negative, with thousands of hobbyists warning that the rules would impose huge new costs on those who simply wanted to continue flying model airplanes, home-built drones, or other personally owned devices...

The new rules are largely designed to address safety and security concerns raised by law enforcement agencies. They worry that drones flying too close to an airport could disrupt operations or even cause a crash. They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas. To address these concerns, the new FAA rule would require all new drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds to connect over the Internet to one of several location-tracking databases (still to be developed by private vendors) and provide real-time updates on their location. That would enable the FAA or law enforcement agencies to see, at a glance, which registered drones are in any particular area...

The rules require that the drone itself have an Internet connection. That will instantly render many existing drones obsolete, forcing hobbyists to upgrade or discard them. And it will also make it significantly more expensive to own a drone, since you'll need to sign up for a data plan.... Apparently anticipating a backlash, the FAA does offer a workaround for people with existing or custom-built aircraft: special FAA-designated areas where people could fly non-compliant aircraft. These would be run by "community-based organizations" — most likely existing model airplane clubs that already operate fields for hobbyists to fly their aircraft.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

America Proposes New Rules Requiring Drones to Broadcast Their Location Online

Comments Filter:
  • by TwoUtes ( 1075403 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @02:44PM (#59784740)
    "They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas." No real terrorist would dare to disable the internet connection on their drone of doom. Would they?
    • "They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas." No real terrorist would dare to disable the internet connection on their drone of doom. Would they?

      Not arguing this specifically, but as to the usual general argument that only law-abiding citizen will comply with [insert rule here], well.... everyone is a law-abiding citizen right up to the moment they're not.

      • by gtall ( 79522 )

        A royal pain in the ass for complying to be law abiding vs. ignore the FAA. My bets are on ignoring the FAA.

      • I'm feeling kind of dumb anyway today, but I don't grok your point. This system will only let the authorities know if unadulterated consumer drones are going "astray", and there will MANY of those. Most of the dumbasses who get into trouble with drones now will not know they are being tracked and the cops will soon ignore the flood of reports about them. Given the potential for so much noise, even stupid casual terrorists will probably be able to hit their targets before anything can be done about it.

        • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @04:16PM (#59785046)

          An obvious compromise would be to only require location reporting from drones carrying explosives.

          • Yes, a sensible start, leading eventually to a total ban on murdering people with drones.

          • ShanghaiBill - since the drone would be carrying explosives in your example, the illegal drone would be further in violation of the law as no 4 digit ID numbered placard or 4 digit ID placard with orange label was displayed as required by the Dept of Transportation (Emergency Response Guide) for the explosives on board. But we know already no ill intended individual would abide by that law either - right!!!! That begs the question how many attacks have been by drones to warrant such intrusion i
          • An obvious compromise would be to only require location reporting from drones carrying explosives.

            That would violate the second amendment...

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          You obviously have no idea how US law enforcer quotas work and catching drones would generate a nice fat fine.

          Personally I go with generally banned except in your own property or with the property owners permission but local government can set aside place where they can be operated.

          How big does a drone need to be, well, metal blades coated with poison instead of plastic blades and fly it at a persons neck and well, you are done and so are they. Drones can be really dangerous and thanks to the CIA fucking ar

          • by sjames ( 1099 )

            And since frisbees can be fitted with razor blades, we'll need to expand the rules to cover those as well.

            And of course, paper airplanes since you can stick a sewing pin in the nose.

            • by Cederic ( 9623 )

              Terror today in Manhattan as dozens of paper aircraft were released from the top of several of the city's tallest buildings.

              Horrified onlookers could only wait several minutes, the skies above them darkening as the paper slowly fell, delayed by the occasional loop. Not knowing the vicious nature of the attack many failed to take cover, only to fall to the inevitable pin prick that let them know they too had been infected.

              • Continuing the news story: "Republicans are blaming Democrats for thwarting a bill which would have required GPS tracking on all paper airplanes, thus preventing such an attack."

      • Its like ships transponders... you can see real-time ships that suddenly stop broadcasting their location as they wander off to hok up with another ship (generally for illegal fishing [globalfishingwatch.org] but also to ship oil from certain states)

        If they cannot prevent ships from doing this, what's the chance drone operators will care.

        And the chance that an Islamic terrorist about to drop a bomb on a crowd (or a right-wing terrorist dropping a incendiary on a mosque) will have the tracking turned on is naievety in the extreme.

        So

    • If this actually passed, terrorists could cause far more damage by spoofing drones. Not actually flying real drones, but using botnet computers to spoof messages to the Internet as if they were a drone flying towards an airport. The airport officials would then panic and shut all flights down down because they're getting a message that a (nonexistent) drone is flying over the airport. The panic itself might actually cause airliners fatalities (e.g. fuel starvation while waiting to land [wikipedia.org]) than this is desig
      • by redback ( 15527 )

        Perhaps this is the solution if they bring in the law.

        One of these every day until they give up.

        • They'd just have reason to outlaw drones like they've been trying to do for the last decade. The goal here is to ensure that when the elite use their drones to squash the plebs in the future, the plebs don't have readily available hardware free of backdoors from which to construct their own drones.
        • They'd just make every drone user register with a passport and verified address and pay $1000 for a license, and if you send even one airport approach, fake or not, you're off to Guantanamo without a trial. (Legal now, thanks to the USA PATRIOT act.)

          All so they don't have to actually work and come up with a legiimate law that does not harm the innocent.

    • "They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas." No real terrorist would dare to disable the internet connection on their drone of doom. Would they?

      This attempt by the government to heavily regulate and control hobbyist/"civilian" drone use has nothing at all at it's roots to do with any of their stated reasons. The government from local law enforcement on up to federal agencies have been largely able to keep things they don't want the public to see and know away from public eyes. Drones change that and they see that as a major threat as they view the public as their adversaries because they seek to rule rather than govern and an informed & aware p

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The goal is to stop low skill terrorists using drones.

      A lot of terror attacks in the west are very low tech and low skill. Even the old favourite the home made bomb is going out of fashion. These days it's mostly easily available stuff: vehicles and knives or guns.

      If the drone's firmware refuses to fly without an internet connection that will stop most terrorists from using it.

  • First drones (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xack ( 5304745 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @02:51PM (#59784752)
    Your car will be next.
    • Your car will be next.

      That would be harder to justify. Drones kill way more people than cars.

      • by nnet ( 20306 )
        Only when launched by unethical governments.
      • Only government ones.
      • Neither drones nor cars kill many people at all. Drone pilots and car drivers do nearly all the killing. We do way more drone strikes than cruise missile launches now, because they're cheaper.

        Putting that aside, deaths by drone strike are in the single digits of thousands per year, while automotive deaths are over a million per year.

    • Your car will be next.

      Actually, when the FAA starts caring about cars, requiring them to broadcast their positions will probably be a good idea... though, obviously, the "on the Internet" part will still be dumb.

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        "I'm on the road!"

        Lets hope the regulations worry more about accuracy than precision.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @02:55PM (#59784762)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by blue41 ( 6654018 )
      Personal life first then drones can broadcast their locations. After all this is the way life worth living anywhere.
    • So true... just look at how succesful prohibition was in the 1920s. People only obey just and fair laws -- they ignore those laws which are patently unjust, unfair or unjustified. The latest example is how the prohibition of cannibis is being repealed in an increasing number of states.

      What's even more interesting is that the FAA has performed no formal, independently peer-reviewed risk assessment to justify these rules. They're claiming that they need to remove the freedoms of the public and cripple th

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Unenforceable laws just create false expectation , additional bureaucratic overhead and blackhole tax dollars that could have been used for something useful. Be better off spending that money on therapy for those in fear, to get over their lack of self-confidence towards their own survival.

      The situation is much worse than you think: this isn't just an unenforceable law, it's all illegal law. In a free country, people have the right to fly drones provided they do so in a reasonable manner - this is a subset of the general right to reasonable conduct that is applicable in any contrary that claims to be free - where the people and not the government have the ultimate authority to determine what is reasonable. The vast majority of drone use is in fact reasonable - and as long as people are ope

    • by fenrif ( 991024 )

      They work really well at criminalising the entire populace. Which is a good thing to have in your pocket if anyone starts getting uppity, or saying things you don't want to be said. Pass enough silly laws like this which aren't enforced and eventually you can pick up any random Tom, Dick, or Harry and find something to arrest him for.

  • Extreme measures. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @02:56PM (#59784772)

    If you want to have drones broadcast an ID or respond to inquiries then that's one thing but it's something else entirely to require actively and continuously broadcasting to a privately owned and operated network. This is just non-sense and nothing they are suggesting will make people any safer.

    • If you want to have drones broadcast an ID or respond to inquiries then that's one thing but it's something else entirely to require actively and continuously broadcasting to a privately owned and operated network. This is just non-sense and nothing they are suggesting will make people any safer.

      If I read the proposal correctly, the specifically prevent such a setup:

      Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system under this part with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment in transmit mode.

      • That provision only prohibits using ADS-B Out to implement the reporting provisions proposed.

        The proposal is for an alternate system to provide significantly more detailed location information that ADS-B Out currently provides. It proposes that drones use cellphone modems to send this data to privately owned and operated data collection services.

        So, yes, what the GP said is what's being proposed.

    • by Agripa ( 139780 )

      If drones must register through the internet, then a drone can be spoofed anywhere. If a drone must be equipped with a transponder, then spoofing can only occur locally and can be tracked.

  • by gTsiros ( 205624 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @02:58PM (#59784784)

    the gist is:

    for "Standard remote identification UAS":
    1) "If, at takeoff, the UAS cannot connect to the internet" : "Broadcast" (and, i assume, do take off)
    2) "If, at takeoff, the UAS is connected to the internet, but is not transmitting to a Remote ID USS" : "Do not take off"

    for "Limited remote identification UAS":
    1&2 same as above) : "Do not take off."

    so, no, there is no hard requirement for an internet connection. That requirement is only for "limited remote identification UAS"

    *STANDARD remote identification UAS*: "would be required to broadcast identification and location information directly from the unmanned aircraft and simultaneously transmit that same information to a Remote ID USS through an internet connection."

    *LIMITED remote identification UAS*: "would be required to transmit information through the internet only, with no broadcast requirements; however, the unmanned aircraft would be designed to operate no more than 400 feet from the control station. "

    HOWEVER!
    "For purposes of this proposed rule, a âoelimited remote identification UASâ is a UAS that: (1) Is designed and produced to restrict operation to no more than 400 feet from its control station; (2) is CAPABLE OF CONNECTING TO THE INTERNET and transmitting the remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; [...] Persons operating a limited remote identification UAS would be required to operate within visual line of sight"

    sooo getting mixed signals here

    In any case, whatever that text says, this whole deal is absurd to say the least. Do they think the internet is like air? That you can connect to it from any point in the continent? Are these people high, stupid, stupidly high or highly stupid?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      //Are these people high, stupid, stupidly high or highly stupid?// None of the above. Do you really think this is about drones? This is the first of many pushes to force people to publicly register their locations at all times. License plate tracking isn't enough. We live in a soft tyranny, and it's ravenous for information on each citizen. Our overlords won't be satisfied until we're all chipped.
    • I'm usually pretty agnostic on such things, but it's pretty clear that this rule was basically purchased by the drone delivery folks to clear the low-altitude airspace and merely given a veneer of "for public safety."

    • by gTsiros ( 205624 )

      ah fak

      i think i wrote the first part in the wrong order...

      the first numbered list refers to *limited*, not standard.

      the second one ("1&2") refers to *standard*, not limited

      as always, trust but verify

  • This is crazy! Those whom are up to no good will just ignore this anyway. Who in their right mind would expect a terrorist to adhere to the rules and broadcast their drone's location? There is something basically wrong with this whole idea!
  • and transmit his location. WTF are these people smoking?

  • Here is a thought...instead of a continuous Internet connection, how about a small transponder like onboard other forms of aircraft?

  • When you can get every gun carrying American to wear a smart phone that reports their GPS location once a minute to a similar system, then maybe you can ask for it for the drone users. A drone probably has a 0.001% chance of going near an airport and causing a problem, but people with guns kill people every day.

    2427 guns deaths in the U.S. already this year, including 604 kids shot. Another 4210 gun injuries on top of that. A drone is not even worth people's time to worry about if you're concerned about

  • "America Proposes..." means that official representatives of America would make a proposition in an international forum, for a joint international rule set.
    "FAA proposes" would have been more correct.

    And BTW, America is first a continent. For most people in the world, who do not have English as their mother-tongue, "America" means the continent and not a nation. Not everyone who speaks English says "America" to mean USA either. Better to use the word "USA" instead of "America" to avoid this ambiguity.

    • by gTsiros ( 205624 )

      Greek here.

      i use 'usa' or 'the states' when talking in english

      in greek i'll use the equivalent of 'america' to refer to the country, unless in a very strict context, like a lecture, official document or similar, in which case i'll use the unabbreviated name the first time and Î--.Î.Î'. from then on

      i bet my left nut anyone who can understand what is presented on /. will *not* be confused when "America" is used to refer to the states, not the continent.

    • Actually, 'America' is not a continent. 'North America' and 'South America' are continents. Pretty much every English speaker uses 'American' when talking about U.S. citizens, as opposed to 'Canadian', 'Mexican' or the other Central American residents of the North American continent.

      Using 'American' when referring to U.S. residents in English makes more sense than using 'Norteamericano' does in Spanish, because the former is specifically NOT referring to an entire continent.

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        Indeed.

        Although Canadians (et al) are also American, by virtue of being from the Americas.

        Which really confuses the Americans.

    • And BTW, America is first a continent. For most people in the world, who do not have English as their mother-tongue, "America" means the continent and not a nation. Not everyone who speaks English says "America" to mean USA either. Better to use the word "USA" instead of "America" to avoid this ambiguity.

      I dunno when this started in recent years to be a thing.

      USA = United States of America......and short for that is "America"...

      That's also why we're knows as American's when speaking of us as a people.

      It

  • Wouldn't it be funny if the 'Murican Gubmint required the same thing for all guns and vehicles?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    "They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas. "

    Terrorists are not going to comply with the new rules if they are allowed to go into effect.

    It's the same old song and dance - the delusion that laws will somehow stop criminals.

    • Besides which, terrorists have had this capability for almost 20 years. I'm the guy who highlighted the risk from DIY cruise missiles way back in 2002. That project got me into a heap of trouble but buy building a "proof of concept" craft using stuff sourced off the internet and from the local hardware store, I proved that it was possible. That nobody has done this in the 18 years since kind of proves that it's not the risk I (and now the FAA) thought it was.

      https://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml
      https

  • by caseih ( 160668 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @03:46PM (#59784948)

    The actual wording of the proposal suggests that allowing "non-compliant" aircraft to fly at designated fields is just a temporary thing. They expect that these "drones" will soon be obsolete and no longer flying at all. Which is really silly if they knew anything about the hobby whatsoever. They furthermore state they require a manufacturer's serial number to be registered. It's a totally bizarre disconnect with reality. My planes are built from sticks covered with plastic film. There is no "manufacturer" per se. Certainly no serial number.

    But the more serious objection is that the FAA has no authority to govern airspace below 400' except on approaches or with specific authorization (life flight). Any full scale aircraft flying below 400' are doing so in violation of regulations and laws. Any RC aircraft flying above that are likely in violation of the law already. We've got enough public safety laws that can effectively govern the hobby already. Many cities ban flying toys in public parks. Of the many near-miss drone reports near airports, not one has been proven to actually be a drone. In fact in several cases police admitted later there was likely no drone.

    Perhaps the hobby as I've enjoyed it for many years was dying with kids not being interesting in building from sticks anymore, but this will surely kill it.

    Companies like FliteTest who are built on the idea of helping kids learn STEM and get excited about flight will be pretty much shut down by this kind of nonsense. I was going to build some FliteTest aircraft with youth groups, but this puts an end to that.

    I don't think we can blame idiots abusing their toys for this either. Seems most likely these regulations are being bought and paid for by industry players who feel threatened by the rise of low-cost technology that threatens to make them obsolete. They are certainly not about public safety--again, aircraft should not be flying below 400' without authorization. There's just no reason for this sort of rubbish with sub-400', visual line of sight toy flying.

    In the meantime sub-250g airplanes and mini drones are proliferating and are really fun. Don't tell anyone they can be FPV, carry 4K cameras, and fly for 20 minutes on a bettery.

    • by gTsiros ( 205624 )

      when they say 400', do they mean sea level, ground level... ? how *exactly* is that measured?

    • Could also be a preemptive move by the military drone manufacturers. When the government pays several million dollars for a drone, that''s essentially identical to a $3,000 civilian one aside from having a bomb strapped to it, eventually you're going to expect someone in the purchasing decision chain to stop and think "why the fuck are we paying this much?" The solution then becomes to make civilian parts prohibitively expensive or hopelessly obtuse such that if they don't cost as much they will at least
    • My planes are built from sticks covered with plastic film. There is no "manufacturer" per se. Certainly no serial number.

      That makes you the manufacturer. You'll need to assign a serial number compliant with ANSI/CTA-2063-A. This will require you to join CTA (The Consumer Technology Association. I believe the minimum dues are something like $5000 per annum), and then obtain a manufacturer ID. There are 10,000 possible manufacturer IDs but I don't know what CTA charges to get one. Simple, reasonable, reg

  • Reminds me of this..
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/... [thesun.co.uk]
    I hope they implement anti spoofing, otherwise some north Korean script kiddies creates a swarm of virtual drones over JFK..

  • Stealth drones won't only be for the military after this.

  • Tagging geese with a tracker. This can be a bit tricky with non-domesticated geese, they'll have to chase them if they want to attach the tracker.

  • Unelected bureaucrats should only propose. All regulations, rules or interpretations should have to go through Congress, just like a law.

    Hopefully one day SCOTUS forces Congress to stop delegating its responsibilities and actually votes on these issues.

  • Note how it always follows the same pattern:

    "*Everyone* in a group *has to* suffer $y
    because *some* in that group *might* $x."

    Which strikes me as awfully analogous to "every Jew ..." (just to end the discussion outright ;).
    Complete prejudice. Punishing everyone for the faults of a few in that group. Even merely presumed faults.

    But seriously ... shouldn't a legitimate law instead go "Everyone who 1. *actually does* $x, where 2. $x also actually does harm, shall suffer a disadvantage."?
    No, laziness does not j

    • by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Fortunately your analogy fails due to the voluntary nature of inclusion within the drone flying group, so we can ignore it and move on.

  • why the establishment doesn't want you flying drones [newsbreak.com].
  • ... is modeled (see what I did there) by the growth of automobiles.

    Look at the registration, inspection, insurance, licensing, seat belts, air bags and all that.

    I'm all for this. Let the free range drones pony up, and take the others to a compliant field.

  • So we'll get good coverage finally in Buttfuck, Idaho?

  • The head of the FAA is a Trump appointee. This is the GOP hard at work, taking away your freedoms and replacing them with security theater that does NOTHING to improve security.

    • by kaoshin ( 110328 )

      Don't fret. You can count on democrats hard at work fighting to revoke your freedoms of free speech, due process, and to own a firearm. The best part is that making it illegal to have a gun is definitely not security theater, and will ensure no bad guys have guns. Now that's a security improvement!

      If you dislike what the FAA is doing, remember the power they exercise here only exists in the first place because a democratic led congress passed that buck to them. Democrats also currently lead the house co

  • I'll simply continue flying my DJI as I always have and to hell with them! The FCC is brain dead and completely out of touch (and I am a commercial pilot).
    • DJI will force you to comply, they can shut down all their drones (unless you've hacked yours). As a commercial pilot, you dare not refuse to comply; if they catch non-pilots, they can only fine us. If they catch you flying a drone without remote ID, they can pull your real certificate.

  • It would be such fun 10,000s+ drones continuously shouting their GPS locations/presence to all humans in the immediate area.

    Just my 2 cents ;)
  • How many drone police do you think they really have? They still barely even understand the internet other then looking people up on facebook.
  • Despite the implications in the summary, the problem with this rule as currently proposed is that it applies to ALL model aircraft activity, not just drones. The R/C modellers who have been flying scale model aircraft for decades without causing problems are lumped in with the rogue drone operators who are buying completed DJI drones off-the-shelf and flying them recklessly.

    Secondly, the summary implies this regulation is primarily addressing the concerns of law enforcement. Also not true. This regulation i

    • Spot on with your summary, much better than the original.

      The correct answer is to put the regulatory and technology burdens on the large corporate entities that want to fly drone fleets, and also on the manufacturers of off-the-shelf drones, and not on the hobbyist R/C flyers who can neither afford nor require that level of technology nor supervision.

      Which will never happen.

      The government only really cares about the businesses and people with money. They don't care about the people in parks with home built products, the people in the RC clubs who are enthusiasts. Any damage to them --- regardless of their overall importance to the future of avionics as the budding students and explorers --- is irrelevant to government agencies. They only see the companies taking photographic surveys, the delive

  • Annoying and stupid. Just ban them entirely, everyone will be better off. Then model airplanes can be left alone.
  • I'm curious, exactly, how the FAA plans on making this a reality since we can't even get the FCC to mandate the Telecoms cover 100% of the Continental US with wireless / cellular coverage.

    Can't broadcast your position on the internet without a network of some sort.
    ( See recent Slashdot story about rental car that refused to start due to lack of network connectivity in rural area. )

    In addition, a constant broadcast will just eat those batteries that much faster :|

    I might be convinced of this plan if, and onl

    • I'm curious, exactly, how the FAA plans on making this a reality since we can't even get the FCC to mandate the Telecoms cover 100% of the Continental US with wireless / cellular coverage.

      Through the magic of "not our problem". If your "limited" remote ID drone can't get a signal somewhere, you just can't fly it there. If you have a "standard" remote ID drone, you can fly it and it'll broadcast location via RF... but if you have a shitty connection such that it _thinks_ you have a connection but it can't

  • It figures that technologists and legislator spout off about their respective work product from the ivory tower of islands of broadband internet access. Both of these groups need to remember that there are lots of places in the country where there is no internet or cellular service (and they aren't too far from a major city) yet these are precisely the places where UAVs for search & rescue are needed.

The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Working...