Obama signs bill to proliferate drones in US skies, make unionization harder for airport workers

[woo me with science]

Here is a previous thread about this bill:

Congress Passes Bill to Proliferate Drone Use in US Airspace (FAA says up to 30,000 by 2020)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002287989


And the current link. It was signed by the President on Tuesday.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/WithPresidentsSignatureFAAReauthorizationOfficial_206181-1.html

February 14, 2012
With President's Signature, FAA Reauthorization Official
By Mary Grady, Contributing editor

After five years of trying to get a long-term FAA funding bill passed, President Obama's signature on Tuesday was the last step required to create a new four-year authorization bill. The $63.6 billion bill, which runs until 2015, aims to provide consistent funding and support to help upgrade to NextGen. "This is a great day for our National Airspace System," said Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "This four-year bill will provide the funding stability we need to develop and train our next generation of controllers along with the next generation of equipment and procedures."

Besides providing the long-awaited funding for NextGen, the bill accelerates the integration of drones into the domestic airspace, and makes it harder for airline workers to unionize. General aviation groups were generally pleased with the bill, which left out user fees and requires no tax increase for avgas or jet fuel. The bill also makes it possible for the government to create an incentive program to help general aviation pilots equip for NextGen, authorizes $13.4 billion for airport improvement projects, and allows airports to grant access to adjacent property owners.

[lamp_shade]

1. bookmark

[JVS]

2. What are you bookmarking for?

[Dragonfli]

10. Why do you care? (most people use bookmarks to return to a post, next time you will know) /nt

[JVS]

11. I'm curious about why someone would announce the bookmarking rather than just quietly bookmark

[Dragonfli]

16. Oh I see now, I think that some use a post as a bookmark, then the "my posts" page to find it.

I used to do that a long time ago.

[woo me with science]

3. Kick

[woo me with science]

4. Related link

Don't miss this post by Phantom power:

Drone plane manufacturing industry is writing the legislation that governs their use in the US
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002314823

[Initech]

5. It's becoming more and more clear: we live in the matrix.

[fascisthunter]

6. fucking nuts

[woo me with science]

7. Kick

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. K & R...

Start the countdown until one of these things gets sucked up by a commercial jet on final somewhere...

[Dragonfli]

9. Kick /nt

[morningfog]

12. My understanding is this is not the big Reaper-like drones used in wars.

NYT says this:

Under the new law, within 90 days, the F.A.A. must allow police and first responders to fly drones under 4.4 pounds, as long as they keep them under an altitude of 400 feet and meet other requirements. The agency must also allow for “the safe integration” of all kinds of drones into American airspace, including those for commercial uses, by Sept. 30, 2015. And it must come up with a plan for certifying operators and handling airspace safety issues, among other rules.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/technology/drones-with-an-eye-on-the-public-cleared-to-fly.html?_r=1&hp

[woo me with science]

13. I am not sure of your point.

First, small drones will be more useful in cities. In fact, the Pentagon is actively developing hummingbird-sized drones for military use in urban areas. With the signing of this law, we will certainly see development of drones specifically tailored for domestic surveillance and other uses by police departments, and who knows what they will look like. A city in Texas has already purchased a pilot drone capable of tazing suspects from above, although the article I saw about it insists that it will be used "initially" only for surveillance.

"Initially."

Second, the legislation allows for the integration of "all kinds of drones" into American airspace. There will be no shortage of creativity as this new market for drones overhead opens up.

[morningfog]

14. It is a small step, and privacy issues will certainly be implicated.

There will no doubt be many cases litigated on the privacy issues created. My point is, some uses of these small drones are practical and helpful to society. As with any new development of technology there will be a period of time when its proper use has to be defined, weighing privacy concerns with public interest and safety.

There is not much of a grounds to outright ban all drone activity, private and public. It is where we are now. When the surveillance is too intrusive from the police, challenges can be mounted and use can be curtailed, just as it has been with various technological developments. The Supreme Court, in Jones v. US, just prohibited the unfettered long term use of gps monitoring on cars without a warrant, for example.

My point is just that there are some real value to the use of small drones, privately and publicly. Drones can help in emergency situations when it is too dangerous for people to go in on the ground. It can help private citizens monitor police actions and large environmental impacts of corporate operations.

The use can and will certainly be abused. I would certainly oppose invasions of privacy and challenge their use on 4th Amendment grounds. I also think any drone that is weaponized over US skies would be intolerable.

When we read drone, we automatically think of the drones strikes which have become a favorite of the Obama Administration. But, this isn't that.

[woo me with science]

15. This is not a "small step" by any means.

While I appreciate your careful response, it is unrealistic to suggest that this is a "small step." This step will revolutionize surveillance capabilities in our police departments across this nation and open up an entire new industry that seriously threatens our security and privacy. We are talking about a fundamental change in the way police departments operate in this country, that has the potential to penetrate every area of our lives.

Before we get too sanguine about our Fourth Amendment rights, we should stop and consider the sustained assault they have experienced over the past twelve years, and continue to experience. The pace of these assaults has only accelerated, even under a Democratic administration, because the financial interests driving these changes are deeply rooted in both political parties now. '

It was the Obama administration that fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to surveil us, sans warrant, with GPS. Corporatists in both parties have validated and approved the use of Rapiscans that do not enhance our security but subject thousand of Americans every day to humiliating and unnecessary searches that are profiting the makers of these machines. And corporate interests that stand to profit have been behind the many other pieces of authoritarian legislation we have found ourselves fighting against over the past several years. While we rallied against SOPA and PIPA, our President quietly signed ACTA and claimed national security status for the decision in order to keep it out of the media. The administration is also quietly moving ahead with an Internet ID plan that will make someone rich, and DHS is seeking to implement 24/7 surveillance camera systems that will cover large swaths of New York City, for starters.

And now they want to bring the drones they developed for military surveillance and combat to our skies, and they want to create an entire new industry equipping our police forces with tools to surveil and control beyond anything we could have imagined thirty years ago. We are already pouring money into militarizing our police departments. Our schools, our libraries, our social safety nets are being starved in order to pour money into these schemes that oppress us and profit the makers. Do we really need to do this? Do we really want to do this?

morningfog, even if you support these measures, and even if you consider them "small steps," I hope you will agree that our efforts now in this debate should not be focused on reassuring the public about "small steps" and downplaying the importance of what is happening, but rather on speaking out loudly to protect our civil liberties. We have learned the hard way over the past twelve years that "small steps" erode freedom, particularly when they come one after another after another, like to a frog in a pot of slowly heating water. We have learned the hard way that our freedoms require constant vigilance and aggressive pushback in order to be maintained. When it is a choice between our liberties and profit, the corporate interests who infest our government will choose profit every time.

The ACLU has just issued a report recommending steps to protect our privacy from aerial drones in our skies.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/report-protecting-privacy-aerial-surveillance-recommendations-government-use

[woo me with science]

17. Don't miss the attack on unions here, too.

Occupy.

[LoveMeLoveYou]

18. Big Brother is watching...

It's just another attempt at greater government control. It's another attempt to spy on us and liberate us of our freedom and privacy.