Skip to main content

Time for anti-drone legislation in Delaware

You won't actually find any current Delaware legislators following through on this idea because ... neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually give a rat's ass about drones in our skies.

But they are coming.

The US Department of Agriculture already has a certificate of authorization to fly drones, and it is in the midst of working with the Delaware Department of Agriculture to develop a program to use unmanned aerial vehicles for a variety of crop and wildlife related uses.  As you will see from the link, local aviators have already raised safety concerns about this.

That's not so much what worries me, though.  It is the response of the Delaware State Police to a FOIA request about drone usage from two months ago that is giving me prickles on the back of my neck:

Here's why:

1.  This is the letterhead on which the request was returned:

Note that the letter did not say that the Department of Safety and Homeland Security does not use or possess drones, just that the Division of State Police doesn't.  This answers the question actually posed by the requestor, but does so in a way that leaves open the question about whether the larger organization may have some records.

2.  The response says that the DSP "does not own, use, or deploy" drones, but it does not discuss whether or not there are future plans to do so.  Again:  not asked, so not answered.

Many states are currently considering anti-drone legislation, or at least legislation that closely regulates the use of such unmanned aerial vehicles.

Delaware needs to do so as well--but, of course, you won't see that happening.

Comments

DPayne said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
April 17, 2015 at 8:22 PM
DPayne said…
UAVs (Drones) have many safe, practical and profitable uses. The media has attacked these things like they are the plague without knowing anything about them or even trying to understand them. Yes there is potential for abuse and misuse as there is with anything that you can buy, own, drink, eat, drive or fly. But we do not need a host of new laws to govern (ban & restrict) UAVs. New commercial UAVs have flight limits built in to protect full scale aircraft. The camera's that come with these are wide angle, almost fisheye lenses so at an altitude of 60 or 70 feet you cannot identify the people below it, so that kills the privacy issue. Can you invade someone's privacy with one? Yes, from a distance of 10 to 15 feet from your target you can get a good picture. But without spending $30,000.00 for a flying super camera you are not going to do it from any distance that people won't see it. We already have laws and regulations in place that can deal with any misuse so don't get your panties in a wad over drones. Before you condemn them, get to know them, know what they are capable of what the dangers really are and what good they can do. Don't take the word of someone who has never seen one other than on youtube and don't spread hype and lies just to put your name to a column. The US is years behind every other foreign country in the world as far as the use of UAVs for both private and professional purposes. The reason for this is the news media has to hype it up for the mere sake or ratings and the government has to over investigate and over regulate as they do everything else. Bottom line is, don't knock something you don't know anything about.
April 17, 2015 at 8:29 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more