Drone-Shooting is Now a Federal Crime, FAA Confirms (slate.com) 192
An anonymous reader writes: At least 12 different drones have been shot from the sky in the United States, including drone shootings in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Virginia, Kentucky, and New Jersey. Now the FAA is confirming that drone shooting is a federal offense, citing regulations against aircraft sabotage. An aviation attorney (teaching drone law at New York's Vaughn College of Aeonautics) tells Forbes this means penalties of up to 20 years in prison for interfering with the "authorized" operation of an aircraft, while threatening a drone or a drone operator would also be a federal crime subject to five years in prison.
Slate notes that "This is bad news if you were planning to invest in the DroneDefender, a goofy-looking gun that promised to disrupt intrusive drones by bombarding them 'with radio waves that disrupt [their] remote control and GPS signals'." And Popular Science adds that "It also poses a complication for some local and state laws, like Utah's proposed HB 420, which would let police shoot down drones in emergency situations." Meanwhile, police in the Netherlands are actually training eagles to attack drones. And last week in South Africa, a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head.
Slate notes that "This is bad news if you were planning to invest in the DroneDefender, a goofy-looking gun that promised to disrupt intrusive drones by bombarding them 'with radio waves that disrupt [their] remote control and GPS signals'." And Popular Science adds that "It also poses a complication for some local and state laws, like Utah's proposed HB 420, which would let police shoot down drones in emergency situations." Meanwhile, police in the Netherlands are actually training eagles to attack drones. And last week in South Africa, a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head.
It's a crim to destroy ham radios (Score:2)
The FCC rules and regulations have long held it illegal to destroy hamateur radio equipment, so this doesn't surprise me.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do. I regularly transmit my signals over and onto YOUR property daily.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the ham radio doesn't hover over my property and send pictures and video from a camera to your base station.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor has a drone hovered over your property and sent pictures of it to his base station.
Re: (Score:2)
Due to the power that they transmit with, in order to operate most of the real-time streaming video on drones you must be a licensed ham radio operator.
That doesn't sound right. Can I have a link before I say bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
Regulatory interpretation vs State law (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering it took the FAA this long to come to this conclusion, I believe that judges should take a careful look at the logic they used in reaching their decision before agreeing with them. That being said, I would need to spend more time than I care to at this time to determine if the laws support the FAA or not.
Re:Regulatory interpretation vs State law (Score:4, Interesting)
To reach this justification, the FAA turned to 18 U.S.C. 32, a law that in part expands “United States jurisdiction over aircraft sabotage to include destruction of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.” The FAA, as the part of government that oversees that sky, could have made an exception when applying this law to small, uncrewed aircraft. That it didn’t fits into a larger pattern: whenever the FAA is given the opportunity to treat drones as regular aircraft, it chooses to do so. That means pilot’s licenses for drone business operators, and it means that when the FAA bans aircraft for miles around the Super Bowl, that ban applies to drones too.
It also poses a complication for some local and state laws, like Utah’s proposed HB 420, which would let police shoot down drones in emergency situations. While the FAA may have answered decided that drone shootdowns are already illegal under existing law, we’ll have to see how drone shootdown cases proceed in the courts to know if that assertion will hold.
http://www.popsci.com/it-is-fe... [popsci.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, there is precedent that would prevent FAA asserting jurisdiction all the way to the ground. (United States v. Causby - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]) That case went all the way to SCOTUS and from the decision -
'Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface.' ***
*** Many have interpreted this to mean that one owns the air 83 feet
Re: Regulatory interpretation vs State law (Score:3)
They may be trespassing but, as far as I am aware, no state gives you permission to cause property damage to any trespasser on your property. So, this would make damaging any drone on your property a crime. And with current FCC rules, any interference with radio signals is a crime, period. It doesn't leave many options other than locating the drone operator and calling the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Trespass in a Castle Doctrine state has caused death. Be interesting to see the castle defense used against drones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Should be a no-brainer. It's only a matter of time before drone violence and/or property damage is a thing. So yes, it is more that just taking pictures of people through windows. If I suspect a drone may attempt to injure me or destroy my property, I have every right to destroy it assuming I do so within existing ordinances pertaining to discharge of weapons, etc. But keep in mind people do shoot at birds with firearms in areas where it is legal to do so and the FAA doesn't need to get involved.
Maybe a
Re: Regulatory interpretation vs State law (Score:2)
The laws in play change significantly if there's a weapon attached to the drone in some way as there is a reasonable expectation that the pilot intends you harm if it is flying low on your property. Now, if you claim there was a weapon but, none was found by the police after, a jury isn't likely to buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a good point, the anti-drone weapon needs a Go-pro/dash camera for liability purposes.
In other words (Score:2)
If you own your own drone, and fly it above your land every day up to 400 feet, you own the airspace to 400 feet and can protect it.
Another interesting thought - if your drone crashes into another drone but it's over your land, why is the OTHER person flying the drone not technically at fault for interfering with an aircraft? It makes anti-drone drones all the more appealing as it magnifies the possible harm to someone flying a drone over your land.
Dumb systems - made to be gamed since the dawn of time.
Re: (Score:2)
How about all those airliners and other aircraft including low-flying hot air balloons crisscrossing the skies every day, and have done so for at least a century? Are those not trespassing?
Re:Regulatory interpretation vs State law (Score:4, Interesting)
and hit an unarmed office worker on the head. (Score:2)
"and hit an unarmed office worker on the head."
I wonder if he was "unharmed" after that...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: and hit an unarmed office worker on the head. (Score:2)
No need to make a federal case of it (Score:2)
The wealthy feds run a better, more controlled, outfit than your average budget stricken State-funded penitentiary; although in the US they've pretty much done away with parole, [nolo.com] so there's no early out like in an overcrowded State system.
Loophole (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Authorized" operation. Authorized.
Since the default condition is "authorized", and only the FAA or the military (secret service, whatever) has the authority to declare a deauthorized zone, that's not much of a loophole. It may mean that you could shoot my drone down if I flew it near my house, since I'm in a controlled airspace (airport zone) but it wouldn't mean you could shoot it down in public, or over someone else's house and looking into your yard.
FAA writing criminal laws? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, so they are confirming, that it always has been a crime.
The title: "Drone-Shooting is Now a Federal Crime," — could've lead someone to believe, a part of the Executive-branch has written a law. Not that they haven't been doing so de facto before, but dropping the pretense and doing it de jure would've been a new low...
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking news: Headline written by editor who only skimmed article and wanted to generate the most clicks possible. Some say this could be a case of click-bait, we let you decide, details at 11. ;)
FAA, Netherlands and South Africa (Score:2)
Meanwhile, police in the Netherlands are actually training eagles to attack drones. And last week in South Africa, a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head.
I suppose FAA has no authority in Netherlands, nor in South Africa. So, how relevant is this to the subject?
Learn how to fly kites (Score:3)
"Sorry, officer, but I was just legally flying a kite over my own property, and the drone just smashed right into it."
You could possibly have a decent defense by referring to sailing versus powered ships...
Re: (Score:2)
A forest of tiny barrage balloons on kevlar strings.
everybody will ignore it (Score:1)
Betcha this is one of those laws that everybody is going to just ignore, like jaywalking or littering. Besides I don't see how it is practically evforceable.
Slight problem for the FAA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Under 49 USC section 56501, the "special aircraft jurisdiction" of the United States only includes certain "aircraft in flight", and "aircraft in flight" is defined to mean "an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding". If there is no boarding of the aircraft, the external doors can't be closed following such boarding, and the aircraft is never legally in flight.
While the particular statute the FAA relies on -- 18 USC section 32 -- also includes "any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce" (in addition to aircraft in the "special aircraft jurisdiction" of the US), the rule of lenity would make it hard to convict someone criminally unless the drone was currently being used in such non-intra-state commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
But since there was 0 boarding, the value of boarding is not > 0 and thus not complete.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The criterion isn't "all passengers are on board". The criterion is "doors are closed following boarding". There has to be boarding for the doors to close following it. A lawyer defending the distinction in court would (probably) say that this shows that Congress intended the law to apply only to manned aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, the doors are still closed following boarding. The rest of that definition (from section 46501; had a typo earlier, sorry) says that the airplane is still considered "in flight" until the doors are opened to allow passengers to leave. This isn't rocket science, or even aviation technology. It's simple reading.
Unarmed? (Score:2)
And last week in South Africa, a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head.
Are office workers in South Africa armed by default?
Re: (Score:3)
Police (Score:2)
"It also poses a complication for some local and state laws, like Utah's proposed HB 420, which would let police shoot down drones in emergency situations
Why would this be complicated? Police shoot down humans and get away with it all the time
If the office worker was armed.... (Score:2)
So wrong on so many levels... (Score:5, Interesting)
2) Why cannot individuals defend their privacy on their own property? If gun operation is allowed on their property normally, why is firing their gun at an intruder any more "reckless" than clay target practice?
3) Why are we talking about a 5 or 20 year JAIL sentence? Do they realize how much damage incarcerating people does to society and individual's lives? A felony and 5 year jail sentence can wreck entire lives. How is this appropriate for disrupting drone operation, especially over one's own property?
4) Why is someone shooting a drone on their property different than shooting an unoccupied vehicle trespassing on their property? These cases should be simply prosecuted under existing "destruction of property" statutes, which should not be felonies, and should not have multiple-year jail sentences.
Note: I fly RC aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
"why is firing their gun at an intruder" should be "why is firing their gun at an intruding drone"
Re: (Score:2)
2) Why cannot individuals defend their privacy on their own property? If gun operation is allowed on their property normally, why is firing their gun at an intruder any more "reckless" than clay target practice?
You don't own the airspace above your property, nor is it always easy to tell if something in the sky is over your property or not, not to mention the obvious danger in shooting a gun into the air.
Now there obviously has to be some more/better defined restrictions on what drones can do, but having people shooting drones out of the sky isn't a solution.
3) Why are we talking about a 5 or 20 year JAIL sentence? Do they realize how much damage incarcerating people does to society and individual's lives? A felony and 5 year jail sentence can wreck entire lives. How is this appropriate for disrupting drone operation, especially over one's own property?
The 5 and 20 is the maximum, it would probably only ever be used if there were some major aggravating circumstances.
Second the FAA isn't passing new drone spe
Re: (Score:2)
2) Why cannot individuals defend their privacy on their own property? If gun operation is allowed on their property normally, why is firing their gun at an intruder any more "reckless" than clay target practice?
You don't own the airspace above your property, nor is it always easy to tell if something in the sky is over your property or not, not to mention the obvious danger in shooting a gun into the air.
Now there obviously has to be some more/better defined restrictions on what drones can do, but having people shooting drones out of the sky isn't a solution.
I think the point was that you can legally fire a gun into the air in certain places if the local town ordinance allows, obviously not in populated areas. In rural areas it is very common to just step outside your back door and have some clay target practice, or even taking down some actual birds.
Also, the definition of 'airspace' is the key. What myself and many others are arguing is that 'airspace' is not below tree-top level. Certainly not a few feet off the ground where you would probably be to look
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Look at how most bills are written at the Federal level by US congress. Usually the first few paragraphs will refer to this, even if it is asinine. There are a few other specifically enumerated powers that congress can act under. Budget, etc. But this is the big one for most new things.
Re: (Score:2)
3) Why are we talking about a 5 or 20 year JAIL sentence? Do they realize how much damage incarcerating people does to society and individual's lives? A felony and 5 year jail sentence can wreck entire lives. How is this appropriate for disrupting drone operation, especially over one's own property
As this is the US you shouldn't be surprised about excessive penalties, that is the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we talking about a 5 or 20 year JAIL sentence?
Because the law covers forcing a passenger jet with 300 people on board to crash land, as well as idiots shooting at a $50 drone.
Respect My Authoritaaaaaa! (Score:4)
This is yet another example of a Federal agency going off half-cocked in an effort to extend itself rather than to make any improvement for We the People.
"Drones" are a hot topic so the smell of budget allocations is in the cesspool. If drones are not 'aircraft' then the FAA has no excuse to meddle with them. So, drones must be aircraft. FCC is already in the hunt because radio. Wonder which agency will be next to stake a claim: BATF, maybe?
This issue is analogous to the morons shining laser pointers at pilots. Legislation doesn't stop them any more than laws stop criminals from committing crimes. None of this is about making improvements, it is just about agencies growing and getting more money.
Drone Use should also be declared a federal crime (Score:3)
They should make it illegal to fly a drone over someone's property, less than 1,000 ft, without their permission.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, fine: But there has to be BALANCE, then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I brace for all the drone-yahoos who are going to scream and cry and stamp their feet, insult me, send me death threats, moderate me down as a troll, etcetera etcetera etcetera, and my response to all that is the same as it's always been: If 100% of you people with your drone-toys had been responsible and reasonable with them 100% of the time all the way back since the first ones were available, then none of this government involvement would have happened in the first place, and I wouldn't be posting my opinions of how you and your drone-toys should be handled, officially-speaking. Tough shit for you, suck it up, and if you want to beat on someone for your little drone-toy hobby being 'ruined', then go find one of the assholes who did stupid shit with them and brought all this down on your shoulders; I don't have a drone, don't want a drone, don't even want them around to start with, and don't give a fuck if your little hobby is ruined or not, STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
That just shifts the target (Score:5, Insightful)
Now rather than killing a drone, it makes more sense to kill the drone operator as you'll get a lighter sentence.
Also, murder is not a federal crime except for a few specific cases which this does not fall under. So all around, it's a win-win!
Not to mention if you bring down drone the operator can report you, but if you bring down the operator you are more likely to get away with it.
Not that if you do go after a drone operator, make sure you kill them after they bring the drone back in or otherwise you could technically be charged with disrupting the "pilot" of an aircraft in flight. Plus, free drone!
Thanks to the FCC for bringing about rules that make more sense to end human life than mechanical... bang-up job there.
Trespassing law applies or not? (Score:2)
All states and jurisdictions also support trespassing laws. How do they play into this discussion? Is contact with the ground required? I don't think so. The FAA is asking too much in requiring my faith that any drone over my property is there for some legal and beneficial reason. Citizens must be given some recourse to challenge the legitimacy of any drone. Legal experts care to comment?
But is drone droning against the law? (Score:2)
Unarmed Office Worker (Score:2)
Are South African office workers armed frequently enough to require a distinction?
Needed said? (Score:2)
a drone crashed through the window of an office building and hit an unarmed office worker on the head.
Does any regularly interact with "armed office workers", because that could make deciding which project gets done more interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the key is Authorized operation of an aircraft. if it is doing illegal activity like filming your daughters then it was not authorized and should be taken down.
Re:Piss off FAA! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the key is Authorized operation of an aircraft. if it is doing illegal activity like filming your daughters then it was not authorized and should be taken down.
So, what if I 'protect' my property with a drone of my own? I could claim the invader is the aggressor, and therefor the felonious one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Piss off FAA! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If someone peers over your fence and starts taking photos, you can't grab their camera and smash it. You have to report it to the police. Vigilantism isn't encouraged.
So I'm surprised anyone would think that destroying a drone would be okay. There is also the small issue that you don't own their airspace above your property, and can't stop aircraft/satellites flying over.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone peers over your fence and starts taking photos, you can't grab their camera and smash it. .
If they enter your property with it, it may be allowed if you feel threatened.
Re:Piss off FAA! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you destroy it? That's just destroying the most important piece of evidence you could give to the police, and diminishes the chances of catching the person who installed it.
I'd put some tape over it (or maybe the goats.cx guy), report it to the police and do what I can to trace the owner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep that will stop the bastards!
Re: (Score:1)
If somebody peers over my fence and starts taking photo's of my kids, I'm morally obligated to destroy the camera and correct the person using it. I'll take my chances with 7+ women jurors on average and my story about a pedophile taking pictures of my young daughter. Legal and moral do not always coincide.
The FAA is simply trying to extend it's regulations, under 500f needs to be clearly the property owners period (outside of near airports).
Re: (Score:3)
And the photographers story about how he was trying to document how you are into incest and sexually abusing your daughters? look the one has a bruise! He was simply thinking of the children and trying to rid the neighborhood of an evil person.
The bullshitting you try to pull in court can also be pulled on you in a worse way.
Re: (Score:3)
my story about a pedophile taking pictures of my young daughter.
So after beating down a potentially quite innocent person without being given either the presumption of innocence or a fair trial you're going to make up a story about him being a criminal and try and get him convicted in the process. .... And then claim a moral high ground.
The only sad thing about this is that it's too late to stop you passing on your DNA to another generation. Hopefully your young daughter doesn't grow up with such a retarded view of the world.
Re: Piss off FAA! (Score:2)
Ok, but in your scenario your rights to the airspace end at your property line. So what happens when your neighbor is flying above his property? Are you going to try to claim that airspace as yours as well?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take my chances with 7+ women jurors on average and my story about a pedophile taking pictures of my young daughter. Legal and moral do not always coincide.
Meanwhile the photographer will be winning a libel suit against your claims they're a pedophile which will rather complicate your defense against the assault charge.
Where do you live? I'll pop over and photograph your daughters. I like photographing children, it's legal and people like the photographs when I share them on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the small issue that you don't own their airspace above your property
It would seem that case law isn't in agreement. At least SCOTUS has indicated below 83ft is yours, and it ends somewhere at or below 500ft.
http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]
Re: Piss off FAA! (Score:2)
Even if your paranoid assumption is correct, your girls would grow up with their father in prison. Is that what you want? Committing a crime in response to a crime does not get you out of the consequences of your actions. As the old saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.
Re: (Score:2)
False. There's an expectation of privacy. I.e. Paparazzi shooting from the neighbour's balcony is just fine. Paparazzi climbing a tree, scaling a fence, or flying a drone into the air is invasion of privacy.
Re: What about the voyeurs? (Score:1)
Cool, cant wait til you do that to the feds that show up to arrest your dumb ass.
Re: (Score:2)
and why we can't have cool things.
If your society functions only if there aren't two idiots in the world, then maybe you ought to fix it before someone trips over the power cord.
Re: (Score:2)
Shooting someone on their own property doesn't sound like a wise choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering about that as well. I have to wonder if they had been armed what difference it would have made. Highly doubtful they could have pulled iron and shot the damn thing quickly enough if they were to slow to even duck.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not already have rules about discharging a firearm needlessly
No. We do have rules about discharging a firearm within city limits. You can only do it if something is savaging your livestock. Some cities permit the keeping of chickens, and in some of them, you can shoot something that's eating your chicken.
and without regard for persons or property?
Yes. That is very much illegal. You are legally obligated to know what is behind your target, and take it into account, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there really that many of these people out there? I've yet to encounter any of them in real life, nor have I seen drones trying to spy on anyone in the neighborhood.
You should probably stop watching the news so much. The media tends to make people paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. People just have an inflated sense of ego; a generation of everyone being a 'special snowflake' has caused them to believe they're the center of the universe, and everyone is just dying to record them going about their mundane lives.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly have zero understanding of the fatality rate for air vs. surface travel. Come back when you learn to google it before posting your BS.
Re: (Score:2)
The AC has a point. After reading this link, the point is general aviation, specifically aircraft marked 'experimental.' This is typically home-built, antique, etc. aircraft not suitable for passengers etc. But they can still fall on bystanders, which is exactly what happened here.
The accident rate is actually shockingly high. This is not at all comparable to commercial airliner travel, which is what I assume you are insinuating.
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_s... [faa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
GA _is_ far more dangerous than road travel. According to this analysis, it is nearly 9 times so on a per-mile basis:
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry... [meretrix.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It would appear that Congress passed a law allowing the FAA to regulate airspace. Is there some part of that you disagree with?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Manned aircraft: sounds reasonable. Section (a)(2) right at the top refers to the navigation of US citizens in aircraft.
This law appears to have a date of 1994. RC type of 'aircraft' did exist, and this particular law makes no reference to such specifically. Where is the the definition of 'aircraft' to include nearly anything man-made that isn't tethered to the earth? How are we to assume the definition of 'airspace' includes below tree-top level, and all the way down to 1mm off the grass, which is what
Re: (Score:2)
Read the paragraph below. It talks about "use of airspace". That doesn't exclude anything.
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled on the ownership of airspace
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I agree my examples were absurd. I brainstorm the most absurd extremes when reading/writing specifications or code as a form of due-diligence to determine if a definition lacks specificity or not. I annoy a lot of people.
I'm honest in saying I don't understand what is included or excluded here. To split hairs, what is the definition of 'navigable airspace'?
Then again, I'm glad this guy wasn't jumping:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]