Drones

I think this one statement in that article pretty much sums it up nicely...

“It would be the rare technology,” Professor Calo said, “that some people didn’t abuse.”

A thought: Has anyone addressed the issue that the FAA (an arm of the federal government) does not have (imho) LEGAL constitutional jurisdiction over anything anyone does unless it takes place on or over federal property, or a commercial interest involving transactions across state or international lines?

What the FAA does could easily be linked to interstate commerce, as can almost anything else.

But someone flying a drone that is a personal hobby is not engaging in interstate commerce. Even if they are operating as a business to sell video footage collected in that manner as long as they do it locally, then the federal government has no constitutional authority in such cases.

Damn, I just had a thought. With all of the interstate and international commerce that takes place on the internet, I would think the government actually could make a pretty strong case for having authority for TOTAL control of the internet. Not what I would want, of course, but I think it would be extremely difficult to defend against.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

But someone flying a drone that is a personal hobby is not engaging in interstate commerce.

Their purchase of this good makes it an item that touches on interstate commerce. There are very few things you can think of that have nothing to do with interstate commerce. Wickard v Filburn started down that path and it is now well worn, why wouldn't it be, it is a way for the federal gummint to lawfully exercise power over most anything.

Originally Posted by Lucille

Their purchase of this good makes it an item that touches on interstate commerce. There are very few things you can think of that have nothing to do with interstate commerce. Wickard v Filburn started down that path and it is now well worn, why wouldn't it be, it is a way for the federal gummint to lawfully exercise power over most anything.

Yes, the government certainly does try to stretch the limits of reason with their definition of "commerce", but there have been occasions where the SCOTUS has exercised some saneness in their decisions. Hopefully putting the federal government on notice that they just do not have carte blanche to use that as a catchall for total control of the populace.

In 1995, the Rehnquist Court again restricted the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Lopez v. United States. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The defendant in this case was charged with carrying a handgun to school in violation of the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The defendant argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools, while the government claimed that this fell under the Commerce Clause since possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions. The Chief Justice rejected this argument, and held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that “[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

The federal government’s power was further restricted in the landmark case of Morrison v. United States, which overturned the Violence Against Women Act for its reliance on the Commerce Clause in making domestic violence against women a federal crime. 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Taken together, Lopez and Morrison have made clear that while the Court is still willing to recognize a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, if it does not find activity substantial enough to constitute interstate commerce it will not accept Congress's stated reason for federal regulation.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

Congress acts within its power when it regulates transportation across state lines. The essential nature of the transportation determines its character. Transportation that begins and ends within a single state is intrastate commerce and is generally not within the scope of the Commerce Clause. If part of the journey passes through an adjoining state, then the transportation is interstate commerce, as long as the travel across state lines is not done solely to avoid state regulation. Commerce begins with the physical transport of the product or person and ends when either reaches the destination. Every aspect of a continuous passage from a point in one state to a point in another state is a transaction of interstate commerce. A temporary pause in transportation does not automatically deprive a shipment of its interstate character. For a sale of goods to constitute interstate commerce, interstate transportation must be involved. Once goods have arrived in one state from another state, their local sale is not interstate commerce.

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ommerce+Clause

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that neither the letter nor the original intent of the clause in the Constitution ("To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;") was such that the federal government would like to have it interpreted.

And yeah, I understand that there are just as many examples of the federal government completely trampling the restrictions that the Constitution SHOULD impose over it's overbroad interpretations.

And coming back to my earlier mentioned concern about federal government control over the internet:

Interstate commerce also includes the transmission of intelligence and information—whether by telephone, telegraph, radio, television, or mail—across state lines. The transmission of a message between points within the same state is subject to state regulation.

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ommerce+Clause

And, of course, these are all just OPINIONS offered by the websites.

The following link is a rather interesting discussion of the FAA and it's recent history concerning dealing with the issue of drones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...mestic-drones/

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Yes, the government certainly does try to stretch the limits of reason with their definition of "commerce", but there have been occasions where the SCOTUS has exercised some saneness in their decisions. Hopefully putting the federal government on notice that they just do not have carte blanche to use that as a catchall for total control of the populace.

The one case really has not affected the over wide use of the commerce clause after Filburn to any great degree. I agree that our forefathers never envisioned the sort of power that the Commerce Clause has conferred upon our federal government.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

coming back to my earlier mentioned concern about federal government control over the internet

My own feeling is that there is already a lot more unseen control of the internet that one would think.

Originally Posted by Lucille

My own feeling is that there is already a lot more unseen control of the internet that one would think.

Yeah, you have to wonder how many times the federal government has completely ignored them being forbidden by the Constitution against creating "secret" laws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us...&nlid=57474085

Yeah, that's a DJI Phantom. They've gotten pretty notorious for suffering "fly aways" for people who bought them. Which is why I'm not interested in that brand myself.

My guess is that it was just plain bad luck that the fly away landed at the white house.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Yeah, that's a DJI Phantom. They've gotten pretty notorious for suffering "fly aways"

I obviously can't speak for all DJI drones. I own and use a DJI Phantom pretty often for work. Upon start up for launch you have two options.
1. Just start flying the thing, probably an easy way to suffer a fly away.
2. Wait for GPS lock, then fly the thing. In theory, if the pilot loses signal from flying it out of range, it will auto pilot itself by GPS back to original start point and land itself.

From the one news story I saw on the guy who "crashed" it on the white house. He is quoted as saying "I wanted to try it in bad weather" (something like that). If that was the case, he most likely didn't have GPS lock and just let the thing go free... his (user) fault.