Thread

1. TGower · 1790091717 · focus · HN ↗

   The article doesn't mention the safety angle at all. It's reasonable to argue that even though the Ukraine conflict has popularized drones as weapons, given that we haven't had a major incident yet this temporary flight restriction was premature, but not mentioning it at all makes the bias pretty clear.

   The TFR (which made it illegal to fly a drone within a bubble 1000 feet high and 3000 feet radius of a mobile asset) has been replaced by a NOTAM that basically says flying near them in a way that poses a credible safety or security threat means they can sieze or destroy your drone. I'd say this is the better resolution, and to me represents a "genuine change of heart" by the FAA, finding a way to serve the safety purpose of the TFR without overstepping.

   1. kayodelycaon · 1790102262 · focus · HN ↗

      I’m pretty sure mounting weapons on a drone is already very illegal.

      If someone is mounting weapons on a drone, a flight restriction isn’t going to stop them.

      It’s like putting a sign on a bank that says no bank robberies. Guess who isn’t going to obey the sign? People who rob banks.

      The FAA rule isn’t there to stop bad actors. It’s there to prevent bad actors from being recorded.

      1. TGower · 1790117208 · focus · HN ↗

         To me it's more like the sign saying "No guns in the bank". It's not going to stop someone who intends on doing harm, but that's not it's real purpose. If it was normal to be able to openly carry a gun into the bank, that makes the security guards job much harder.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.