The D.C. Circuit’s U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of the FAA’s Remote ID requirement for drones, saying “drone pilots generally lack any reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of their drone systems during flight.” RaceDayQuads, a racing drone retailer in Orlando, and drone operator Tyler Brennan filed a petition for review of the Remote ID rule on grounds that it amounted to “constant, warrantless governmental surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” but Judge Cornelia Pillard rejected the argument on several different counts.
Free-for-all R/C aircraft flying is anything but free but has been a reality since the 60s. The community has done a good job of self-policing without government meddling. This is just another example of government creating a crisis where none existed, and then conjuring up a solution that only bloats our enormous bureaucracy even more, costs us all money and chips away at our Liberty. It will do nothing to stop the few bad characters, just as no level of restrictions on gun ownership will ever stop determined people from committing gun crime. The problem is all about character, which starts and ends with strong families with a common set of morals.
So vote for more police to followup on tips of bad behaviour and investigate.
There are more elections this fall, such as municipal ones in BC and MB.
(There will be a problem with UAVs that do not have the tracking feature, either made without or disabled.
‘When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.’
As for ‘strong families’ as you probably know many are not - some are plain evil, including some religious ones.
The needed ‘common set of morals’ is to not initiate force against others, as Tara Smith covers in her academic book ‘Moral Rights and Political Freedom’ which reviews various theories of morality.
"drone pilots generally lack any reasonable expectation of privacy in the location of their drone systems during flight.”
I flew a lot of R/C in the 70’s and 80’s and the expectation was always that it was none of the governments business to track my every movement. Since when should we now allow everyone in the world to know exactly when (and exactly where) our childern are playing with their toys?
Flies fly too.
O CRAP! I think I may have given the FAA ideas.
YUP! here they come, draggin’ their tiny hineys like moths to a candle.
Damn! Now they are going to tax the dragon flies.
Perhaps when elected officials demand tracking devices, the prerequisite is always that all elected officials wear them first and without exception? That would put an end to this micro-management nonsense.
A flea and a fly in a flue
Were imprisoned so what could they do?
Said the flea let us fly
Let us flee said the fly
So they flew through a flaw in the flue!
Doona laugh too hard, today’s technology comes close to putting transmitters on insects.
Authorities used such on the “northern giant hornet” that has invaded SW BC and NW WA along the border. (fka ‘murder hornet’ because it kills honey bees, it is big)
They’ve tracked at least one one back to a nest, and destroyed hornets in it.
Since when did elected officials start to fly in controlled airspace and cause hazards to aircraft in flight? None, I wager. Your comment is squarely in “troll” territory, devoid of logic or reasoning.
Your right to do whatever you want to do ends at the interface where your actions as an individual pose enough of a hazard to the safety of others.
The difference between R/C aircraft and drones is the barrier to entry:
An R/C aircraft generally has to be built. And then one has to learn how to fly it. It requires a fair amount of time and dedication to achieve a successful result. This often meant joining a local club to learn these skills and be mentored in responsible behavior.
A drone’s sole barrier to entry is a working credit card. ANYBODY can buy and fly one. There is no training, no club, no mentorship. No hard work invested in learning skills or behavior.
R/C aircraft didn’t need the FAA’s policing because they were inherently self-policing. Drone’s have eliminated that self-policing aspect.
You’re right, without a warrant it’s not the government’s business to track YOUR movements. But it has the responsibility to ensure that airspace (especially controlled airspace) is free of preventable hazards.
Doesn’t matter whether they are drones, R/C aircraft, or whatever you want to call them. Want to taxi them on the ground? Go right ahead, have at it. The government won’t give a rip. The minute they get into airspace occupied by aircraft, they pose hazards to safety of flight, and they need to be regulated.
Somewhat off topic, but as it goes to unwarranted surveillance, I am trying to renew my (non-REAL ID) driver’s license without having my Biometric Data taken (Face Scan) and shared with the FBI, FDA, USPS, etc. without my knowledge and consent.
Talk about tracking your every movement. And what if your face looks like some bad guy’s face?
John L, the evidence and data conclude that “monitoring” did not stop 4 airliners from flying into buildings nor has it detered criminals from robbing convienience stores. Monitoring is used for procecution; not ending problems.
Geeez, John. At least read the story. This was about toys being flow at extremely low altitudes in a speed competion. They are not a hazzard to aircraft and thus should not be regulated like they are hazzards. I bet they even had a NOTAM every time they fly their competitions.
I’ve never seen an R/C aircraft come within a collision course of my aircraft, but I HAVE had a drone come close enough that I had to consider making evasive manuevers.