NE2: Release the Drones Act (Law)

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Governor Dallasfan

Debate on this bill will be open for 72 hours, or until around 5:30 PM on Tuesday, April 29, unless modified or extended. The sponsor has 32 hours to speak on behalf of this proposed legislation. If he does not, this bill will be tabled as there is other pending legislation in the queue.

[Dr. Cynic]

I absolutely oppose this. It's a slippery slope with these things and the last thing we need is to put them in private hands.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I absolutely oppose this. It's a slippery slope with these things and the last thing we need is to put them in private hands.

I don't see what the problem is with legalizing them for some commercial usage. What do you think the consequences would be?

Most people roll their eyes when libertarians talk about drones, but hear me out for a second.

The general impression of drones is that they're "death from the sky." However, the reality is that the technology concerning drones is changing. For instance, Facebook is using drones to try and expand Internet access to millions of people in poor countries.

Out ice fishing, and you need a beer? Now you can have one!

These aren't the only reasons why I think private drone usage ought to be legalized. Drones could also be helpful in finding missing persons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Naturally, I don't find the outcome desirable in this specific instance, but it shows the potential to be a lifesaver in other circumstances.

Is there any way this could be made amenable to you?

[Dr. Cynic]

You could see companies using them to collect data and personal information in the way computer hackers do. All they'd have to do is install cameras. The legislation says something like that is not allowed, but there's no consequences for it in the legislation. What sort of consequences would there be if something like that were to go on?

I don't doubt they'd be useful in finding missing persons, but I question how we can keep them out of the wrong hands. There's simply not enough regulation in this at the present time. Could they be hazards to people walking down the street if the drones have mechanical failures?

[BaconBacon96]

I don't like it, it's a danger to civil liberties.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I don't like it, it's a danger to civil liberties.

I understand (and share, to a good degree) your concerns. However, the reality is that we no longer live in a drone-less Atlasia, and these are likely here to stay.

New York City's police department may be trying to obtain drones. Seattle's police department was also planning on obtaining drones, but public outcry caused the program to be canceled. So my reasoning is, if the police are entitled to use these, then so should our businesses.

You could see companies using them to collect data and personal information in the way computer hackers do. All they'd have to do is install cameras. The legislation says something like that is not allowed, but there's no consequences for it in the legislation. What sort of consequences would there be if something like that were to go on?

I don't doubt they'd be useful in finding missing persons, but I question how we can keep them out of the wrong hands. There's simply not enough regulation in this at the present time. Could they be hazards to people walking down the street if the drones have mechanical failures?

Data and personal information aren't sacrosanct (or at least aren't treated as such) in the 21st century. Google and Facebook collect a good deal of personal information as it is, and I doubt that most of us don't use either. (I eradicated my facebook years ago and haven't looked back, but that's beside the point.)

I do think you've got a legitimate point about oversight and the concern of mechanical failures. However, this legislation is mostly moot because of FAA regulations - the point was just to try and get a discussion going for the Senate to establish a regulatory framework to make this stuff possible.

I still think that this bill ought to be passed, so in the event that the Fed's resolve this we don't have to worry about any regional prohibitions that exist.

[Dr. Cynic]

Drones have the potential to collect far different and much more personal information than Facebook can, though. They can get very close to people's lives.

So, help me get this right now. You're asking us to pass this bill now simply as a matter of procedure and then if and when the fed takes up the issue, there won't be any impediment in the region? Will we then be coming back to it to set up the proper regulations? I'm still inclined to vote against this. If and when the fed takes it up, we can come back to it with a better bill that includes the proper regulations for safety and privacy concerns.

[Deus Naturae]

Dr. Cynic, what do you mean by "personal information?" Since you make the comparison to hackers, I would assume but you're referring to stuff like credit card numbers, passwords, etc, but I really don't see how drones could obtain that sort of thing. As far as taking pictures of houses and people in public, I'm not sure that's really an issue. For one thing, you don't really have a right to not be photographed in public (unless it amounts to harassment). Besides, Google Earth/Maps and similar companies already do that via satellite photography. If you live in a densely populated area, chances are it's already possible to get a picture of your neighborhood. It doesn't make sense to prohibit drones specifically because of that issue.

I do think you have a point about public safety. There will doubtless be accidents, glitches, random failures, etc before drones are fully integrated into the economy (not to mention society) so I think cities should be allowed to establish minimum height limits for drones to fly over so as to avoid crashes and the like.

How about this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This amendment would prevent drones from harassing people and would allow cities to restrict drone flight levels within reason.

Finally, I would like to add that in addition to Dallasfan's arguments, there are a few other potential uses for private drones:

Delivery services (this applies to companies from massive retailers like Amazon to simple restaurants)

Personal/home security (who needs a guard dog when you can have a guard drone?)

Agriculture (monitoring fields and determining which areas require more water, nitrogen, etc)

Aerial surveying and 3D mapping (assessing geological formations, land areas, public and private infrastructure, energy transmission lines, oil/gas pipelines, etc)  

Weather/hurricane/tornado tracking (drones can fly at high altitudes and withstand intense weather forces)

Private drone use may seem like a wacky concept right now, but I have to agree with the Governor that commercial drone legalization will be a boon for our Region, assuming we can get the Feds to hear us out.

[Dr. Cynic]

The comparison to hackers may have been a bit of a stretch, but my point was, you can use drones to get credit card or bank numbers and personal account information very easily. My concern was there was no oversight of who can and can't have a drone and what they can and can't be used for. But, if, as you say, there's nothing to fear on that account, then I'll grant you that. Still, I have grave reservations with regard to the safety of the public.

Also, with regard to your amendment, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't really do enough for the public safety. If a town doesn't pass an ordinance, for example and a drone smacks someone dead in the face, or if it's flying and happens to have a mechanical failure while delivering a package and the package is destroyed. what sort of legal protection would the injured person or the person who lost their package have? For example, could they sue the city for having no ordinance or could they sue the manufacturer of the drones? Or whomever was operating the drones? I just would like some legal clarification in that regard.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Drones have the potential to collect far different and much more personal information than Facebook can, though. They can get very close to people's lives.

So, help me get this right now. You're asking us to pass this bill now simply as a matter of procedure and then if and when the fed takes up the issue, there won't be any impediment in the region? Will we then be coming back to it to set up the proper regulations? I'm still inclined to vote against this. If and when the fed takes it up, we can come back to it with a better bill that includes the proper regulations for safety and privacy concerns.

I believe Deus (and Averroes in another thread) already addressed the first point, so I won't bother.

To put it short on the second point: yes. While there's a shadow of doubt in the United States with regards to Federal vs State, the divisions are more clear in Atlasia. I sincerely doubt that any federal legalization of drones wouldn't be in conjunction with some pretty strict regulation & licensing. I'm not aware of any imminent dangers that would come along with this bill.

[SWE]

I support this bill. While I do understand that some may have concerns about privacy and public safety, I think that it's necessary to embrace this emerging technology with a number of useful applications.

[Deus Naturae]

Does the sponsor deem my amendment friendly or hostile? I need to know so we can move to a final vote.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Does the sponsor deem my amendment friendly or hostile? I need to know so we can move to a final vote.

Ooh, sorry about that Deus.

Friendly of course.

[Deus Naturae]

The debate period is now over. We will now proceed to a final vote on this bill, as amended:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Deus Naturae]

Aye

[SWE]

Aye

[Dr. Cynic]

Nay

[Napoleon]

Aye

[BaconBacon96]

Nay.

[Deus Naturae]

By a vote of 3-2-0, this bill passes and goes on to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.

[Deus Naturae]

The Governor has signed this bill into law.