Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there.
A bad guy used encryption? ...
It depends where you're talking about. Close to airports is the major issue. 2nm from the runway planes will be at 600ft, which is well within the range of drones.
>Instead it will enable mission creep as more places get banned because embarrassing things, like protesters getting beaten, happen there.
We're talking about voluntary geofencing here, by the companies themselves.
Much as I like the idea of keeping drones away from planes, just look at how governments have abused other "voluntary" restriction systems. For example, ISPs install filters for ostensibly noble causes, then governments commandeer them for more questionable uses.
Which governments of civilized, democratic countries have commandeered ISP's filters for questionable uses? If you're talking about the UK porn filter, it is the other way around: government has instituted a law saying they have to do it.
Even if it were a law, I don't see the issue that you are arguing. You're essentially saying "I don't want a law that says drones are banned by default from controlled airspace, because the government might change it's mind and also ban drones from places that embarrass the government", which is just another slippery slope argument.
Are you saying you don't want any laws at all, and people should just be able to do anything they want?
Yeah, that's the point. When the technology has been demonstrated to work (even if badly) in some areas it's suddenly mandated in other areas.
Now we have a technology that was so-so at blocking unwanted porn being used for everything from catching pedophiles to checking for intel leaks. A false-positive in porn blocking was annoying, in pedo-detection it can ruin lives. Worse, when functioning properly it can prop up repressive regimes.
> Are you saying you don't want any laws at all, and people should just be able to do anything they want?
Is that the only choice? Egregious laws that harm innocents and don't actually solve the issue versus no law at all? Well in that case, it's clear. No law is better than being stuck with bad law that doesn't actually help...
But thankfully those aren't the only options. We can push back against bad laws (useless, abusive, etc) and accept the good ones.
> "I don't want a law that says drones are banned by default from controlled airspace, because the government might change it's mind and also ban drones from places that embarrass the government", which is just another slippery slope argument.
No, we don't want useless technological measures mandated that claim to block drones from airports, but fail to actually help in a real security context. Because those useless security rules have only one real purpose - banning civilians from inconvenient things.
Laws, like lines of code, have a distinct cost and we should only add the ones that will actually help.
It's not useless. Do you fly planes? If you look at the youtube video I posted elsewhere in this thread you'll see that the guy wanted to fly near the airport on the beach, but the geo fence wouldn't let him. The beach is <0.5nm from the end of the runways, so planes will be at <300ft crossing the beach. I fly there myself, and I don't want to hit a drone and risk losing the engine or having it crash through the windshield into my face.
Unfortunately we need laws like this because people aren't responsible, as that youtube video proves.
So as a convenience feature that told me I the conditions for where I'm flying, it'd be great. And then it'd only need to be 4-nines, and wouldn't have to have fail-proof lockouts, etc.
But as a major portion of the defense of our air fleet - no. That's ridiculous. If we're that worried we need to figure out something to actually make us safer, not add another perpetual layer of theater.
I'm not sure that seeing an actual implementation is required for politician to have harebrained ideas. Besides, as others have pointed out, geofencing has already been implemented by DJI, so we're past that phase anyway.
Strange, I'm having a hard time thinking of a single US government program that hasn't expanded far beyond the original justification. Bureaucracies expand, water is wet. A classic example of a USG switcheroo would be the social security number being used for identification purposes beyond social security administration. A more contemporary example would be the NSA providing intel to the DEA for domestic law enforcement, which I'm sure wasn't part of the founding mission statement.
> Which governments of civilized, democratic countries...
So only a true Scotsman?
> Are you saying you don't want any laws...
Are you saying that if somebody caused an accident with a drone, then prosecutors would just throw up their hands? We already have enough laws on the books to charge anybody for anything. If causing a horrible accident isn't enough of disincentive for a drone operator then I doubt that they'd pay any attention to the FAA.
That's not "voluntary" - the manufacturers are not the owners/operators of the drones.
We don't need any more encouragement of device lockdown, treacherous computing, and the general erosion of ownership.
Actually, we do, at least in this case. The majority of users don't know/care about flying close to airports. (See my other comments in the thread).
From what I can tell, however, all the larger drones tend to have geofencing already, so perhaps the current de facto situation is adequate.
In any industry that adopts treacherous computing, it spreads like cancer. Phones, cars, entertainment, payment cards. Assumptions of the user being hostile get baked into the design and business models, and must be fortified ever-harder over time. In a computing-based world, perverted cultures that mandate closed devices are simply incompatible with individual autonomy and self-reliance. "Selling" a device while retaining control over it is basically fraud.
Pragmatically, I'd be in favor of the "default config" coming with built-in geofencing to avoid thoughtless idiotic situations. But then the ability to change and fully remove that code must also be provided, ideally through well-documented reflashing process. Anything less creates the unavoidable centralizing path down the slippery slope, and from the users' perspective it hardly matters whether it's the manufacturer or government driving the process.
not legally