Why does Govt ordered "Drone" registration concern you?

[RKBA]

Where do I start?? The list is long but it is headed by:
A. I don't want my PERSONAL information in another government database (not to mention one that is public)
B. I am sick and tired of being treated like a child by the government or worse, someone who is a threat to others with NO justification!

What say you?

 

[tcope]

I doubt this database would be abused. I certainly understand the concern and resistance. However, something was going to happen and this is pretty benign. It also serves to get people off our backs.

 

[RKBA]

I doubt this database would be abused. I certainly understand the concern and resistance. However, something was going to happen and this is pretty benign. It also serves to get people off our backs.

I prefer to not have to "doubt" it will be abused. I want to be SURE it isn't by it not existing in the first place.

And I can keep people "Off my back" all by myself thank you

 

[John N Kronyak]

Just another never ending parade of regulation and potential taxes and fines(Taxes). I thought this country was founded because of too much taxation. There's already Lawyers specializing in "Drone Law". It's gotten ridiculous and disgusting.

 

[John N Kronyak]

I will NOT register and I don't care what others say. How the heck the FAA and DOT got involved I'll never understand. If I think a new regulation is uncalled for or another way to tax my wallet, then ........

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

... I thought this country was founded because of too much taxation. ...

Umm ... no, it was not.

 

[RKBA]

Umm ... no, it was not.

It certainly had something to do with it..... Along with representative government which seems sorely lacking these days!

 

[dirkclod]

I will NOT register

 

[yawnalot29]

I will NOT register and I don't care what others say. How the heck the FAA and DOT got involved I'll never understand. If I think a new regulation is uncalled for or another way to tax my wallet, then ........

How you know your drone hating neighbors won't do it for you? I mean they know who you are and where you live right?

 

[dirkclod]

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

 

[dirkclod]

View attachment 38080

lol..I can remember when it was a dime for a payphone
We don't even have them here anymore

 

[Jeff48920]

In this case (registration) I believe the government, in the persona of the FAA, is actually reflecting the will of the "people". By that I mean the frightened little masses who are listening to the ratings driven media. A media which, like any dog with a bone, will gnaw a story to splinters all the while not bothering to let facts get in the way of sensationalistic reporting.
It is clear to me that DOT and the FAA were looking for some pretty non-invasive method of looking like they were doing something to shut up the masses and the media, when in fact they knew that they were unlikely to be able to do anything substantive to curb the alleged dangers.

The real problem is the possibility that the states (who have ZERO jurisdiction over aircraft in the sky) may try to follow that idiot judge in Kentucky that dismissed the criminal case against that halfwit that shot the UAS out of the sky claiming it "were spying on my daughter". FAA, in keeping with the placate the masses philosophy (and possibly scared of the NRA) has said nothing about this stupidity. Why? you ask, should FAA chime in on this "state matter"---Glad you asked. FAA in its ultimate wisdom has interpreted the statute to include UAS in the definition of "aircraft". There are some special rules for "aircraft" and those who intend or inflict harm on such vehicles. See 18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities.

So, my comrades in flight, if any moron threatens to shoot down (swat down, blow up, burn, etc), or in fact shoots down (swats down, blows up, burns, etc) my Phantom, I will not spend two seconds screwing around with local LEOs. I will call the FBI and request that they investigate the incident and send that report to both the FAA and the U.S. Attorney for the local federal district court. Should the FBI refuse, I will find some local Barney Fife to make the reports to the FAA and the U.S. attorney. In the meantime, I will personally send my complaint to both the FAA and the U.S. attorney. I will also bring a private civil suit for destruction of property in federal court because the issue contains the "federal question" of whether the FAA regs make all aircraft related issues into cases which are exclusively federal jurisdiction.

Registration is a minor annoyance but it has gotten the idiots trying to impose more egregious regulations off our backs. Maybe we should kiss the FAA right on the mouth....

 

[Jeff48920]

BTW, the survey questions seems just an itty bitty bit biased. Seriously... Although you aren't required to be fair and balanced in this area, you surely could have no phrased the Yes option (!!! Its the only way to make us safe!) in a manner that doesn't sound like, "have you stopped beating your wife". While I fully intend to be an early adopter of registration, it has very little to do with blind compliance with the Gummint or because I stupidly believe registration "will keep America safe and democratic"

 

[RKBA]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that for some of us this is a matter of PRIVACY!?!
Simply stated, the government (local, state or fed) doesn't have the right to know everything about me just because they want to.... PERIOD!

This "registration" is just the latest intrusion into my private life. My quadcopter is not hurting anyone.... if in the unlikely event it does hurt someone, I will be held accountable. Thats the social contract we all live under. I'm not required to "make it easier" for those whose job it is to enforce the law. Based on the logic i've read on the other thread, it sounds like many of you would have no problem if the government REQUIRED us to provide finger prints, DNA sample etc for no other reason than it would "Make people act more responsibly".

Also understand that this is not just about the government registration of a toy or $5. Again, this is just the latest example of our government intruding on our privacy. Many of us believe it is NOBODY'S business what toys we own, what guns we own, what websites we visit. Nor is it anyone's business or responsibility but my own if I wear my seatbelt or a helmet or buy health insurance for my family etc etc etc.

I know many of you DO think the government has the right to do these and many other things but that's your problem......we will continue to fight and at the end of the day, we will win!

 

[aka1ceman]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that for some of us this is a matter of PRIVACY!?!
Simply stated, the government (local, state or fed) doesn't have the right to know everything about me just because they want to.... PERIOD!

This "registration" is just the latest intrusion into my private life. My quadcopter is not hurting anyone.... if in the unlikely event it does hurt someone, I will be held accountable. Thats the social contract we all live under. I'm not required to "make it easier" for those whose job it is to enforce the law. Based on the logic i've read on the other thread, it sounds like many of you would have no problem if the government REQUIRED us to provide finger prints, DNA sample etc for no other reason than it would "Make people act more responsibly".

Also understand that this is not just about the government registration of a toy or $5. Again, this is just the latest example of our government intruding on our privacy. Many of us believe it is NOBODY'S business what toys we own, what guns we own, what websites we visit. Nor is it anyone's business or responsibility but my own if I wear my seatbelt or a helmet or buy health insurance for my family etc etc etc.

I know many of you DO think the government has the right to do these and many other things but that's your problem......we will continue to fight and at the end of the day, we will win!

....and I'm with you 100%

 

[syotr]

Here is a simple example:
You have a license plate on your car. Only a member of law enforcement can run a license plate or lookup license plate numbers to find vehicle owner information.
If your 13 year old child has a toy copter with a registration number on it, anyone can read the number and look up who he is and where he lives. This was a hastily planned government over reach with no thoughts about privacy. What are the penalties for not having a license on your car? Look at the penalties they are planning for not having a registered toy. This is just nuts.

 

[ken ferg]

One problem is this ruling will focus automatic suspicion on legal "drone" owners. It's clear to me that this registration is primarily designed to be used as a tool for law enforcement. Problem is the legal drone owner will often be the "ONLY" suspect. When someone calls in complaining that an x shaped "drone" with 4 motors on it was shooting bottle rockets at them the responding officer will quickly realize the only useful information to him is the word "drone". And now there's an easy way to find a suspect, the drone owners database! Then comes the knock at the door, excuse me sir do you have a flying x shaped device with 4 motors? Well that's kind of a vague description, but yes I do. Well sir the drone list says your the only drone owner within 10 miles and as drones can't fly very far I have probable cause to believe your the offender!

This is NOT drone registration, this is PEOPLE registration! Or if you prefer "the National Voluntary Drone Offenders List (NVDOL)!" There is a problem, and there are good solutions! This interpretation of the law does nothing to help safely integrate "drones" in the National Air Space. It designed to streamline enforcement and project a broad net of federal power. I say we pick this apart by starting the arguments small and work our way up. Like: Why does flying my Phantom at low altitude in my own back yard require federal oversight? Well it would be hard to justify unless they admit that it's the "capability" to do something else illegal that justifies their oversight and suspicion. Then we can argue is simple "capability" a reasonable justification or if we should instead focus on people who actually break the law.

Questioning and challenging authority is an obligation. Willful acceptance is not required! They need to be reminded when we object and resist we are not being subversive. NO! we are just doing our job!

 

[ken ferg]

Here is a simple example:
You have a license plate on your car. Only a member of law enforcement can run a license plate or lookup license plate numbers to find vehicle owner information.
If your 13 year old child has a toy copter with a registration number on it, anyone can read the number and look up who he is and where he lives. This was a hastily planned government over reach with no thoughts about privacy. What are the penalties for not having a license on your car? Look at the penalties they are planning for not having a registered toy. This is just nuts.

You may be on to something. I'd like to see their public answer to:
Yes Mr. federal overseer I have a question. I'm worried some pedophile may get little Johnny's number and use it to find out where he lives. Or what if he posts Little Johnny's number online where other pedophiles could find him.

Then there's the feminist version:
Yes sir, I worried that number might be used by a rapist to find out where I live.
You wouldn't want that to happen, would you? Please protect me!!!!

 

[syotr]

If the purpose of this registration to promote safety through accountability, then I already have this covered. I have my name, phone number and address already attached in several places on my drones and cameras. If I lose them, I hope some one will contact me. If I cause damage, I expect to make it right.
Why is it any safer to have a government data base searchable by anyone. Why not just law enforcement?