Hacker News Reader

Comment by asynchronous13 | Hacker News Reader

The article is talking about the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te...

The problematic portion for drone hobbyists is "S.2836 - Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018" that was attached to the FAA Reauthorization bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/283...

In it's current form, it has some really vague wording and definitions. For example, the bill frequently refers to "threat" without a solid definition. It basically says that "threat" will be defined by the Secretary or Attorney General at a later time.

View on HN

THREAT DEFINED.—In defining the term ‘threat’ for purposes of carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary or the Attorney General, as the case may be, shall take into account factors, including, but not limited to, the potential for bodily harm or loss of human life, the potential loss or compromise of sensitive national security information, or the potential severe economic damage resulting from use of an unauthorized unmanned aerial system in the vicinity of a covered facility or asset.

Well no, 'threat' is not being defined by the Sec/AG at a later time, it's right there. Where I will concede to your point is that in the context of unmanned aerial flight, actions by the pilot that satisfy the above are not well enumerated or defined-but I'm only partially through reading the text of the bill.

Please read that definition more carefully.

Here's a paraphrase: In defining the term threat, The Secretary or the Attorney shall take into account factors such as potential for harm, loss of life, national security, and economic damage.

That is not a definition, that is a list of things that must be taken into account when making the definition.

Perhaps I should clarify myself then: there is a definition, but unfortunately that definition is sans-actions of the parties held to the legal standard compared to allowed actions enumerated by parties to whom the express, actionable authority is granted under proposed law in (b)(1).

tl;dr - Pilots may not engage in action(s) that constitute a 'threat', nebulously defined, but the AG may engage in action(s) in response, more expressly defined.

At least that's how I've initially read the proposed changes to this Reauthorization bill.

Edit: fwiw, I think we're both in agreement, however the ends-that the proposal does not go far enough to detail the actions of operators.

"Eiusdem generis: Of the same kind, class, or nature. In statutory construction, the 'ejusdem generis rule' is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned." https://thelawdictionary.org/ejusdem-generis/

"Noscitur a sociis: A latin term for 'it is known by the company it keeps', it is the concept that the intended meaning of an ambiguous word depends on the context in which it is used." https://thelawdictionary.org/noscitur-a-sociis/

so, taking off in an airplane should rank very high on that list. the "potential" for all the things listed there is very high. also love the "but not limited to" before a laundry list.

that is the definition of "a law to be arbitrarily enforced". I guess they do not want any minority flying drones.

I find this very important:

"(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In taking the actions described in subsection (b)(1), the Secretary or the Attorney General, as the case may be, shall—

(A) avoid infringement of the privacy and civil liberties of the people of the United States and the freedom of the press consistent with Federal law and the Constitution of the United States, including with regard to the testing of any equipment and the interception or acquisition of unmanned aircraft or systems;"

See y'all in court.

It’s common for lawmakers to leave technical interpretations to the agencies with regulatory power.

Lets not go all fault-finding on this Act. Commercially available drones has gained some superior capabilities and this worries authorities. As common man we aren't allowed to have such capabilities(by now we should be used to this :)). Risks posed by drones to facilities/routines of authorities far exceeds the interests of drone hobbyists. This is an attempt to put curb on commercial drone and its use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com