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

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...
22 comments
Read more

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...
31 comments
Read more