Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Oregon looking to outlaw "Drones". — Parallax Forums

Oregon looking to outlaw "Drones".

W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
edited 2013-03-20 22:20 in Robotics
http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/sb0001.dir/sb0071.intro.pdf

They define a drone as "an unmanned machine that is capable of; ... capturing images of objects or people on the ground or in the air"

Just possessing an ELEV-8 with a GoPro would be a class B misdemeanor if this is passed.
«1

Comments

  • ctwardellctwardell Posts: 1,716
    edited 2013-03-15 14:49
    W9GFO wrote: »
    http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/sb0001.dir/sb0071.intro.pdf

    They define a drone as "an unmanned machine that is capable of; ... capturing images of objects or people on the ground or in the air"

    Just possessing an ELEV-8 with a GoPro would be a class B misdemeanor if this is passed.

    Wonderful, another case of deciding the government can do bad things with them, so citizens can't even do harmless things with them.

    Also a case of banning the item instead of the crime.

    I see the concern that we don't want people nosing around flying over private property and taking pictures, but make that act illegal, not the device.

    C.W.
  • TinkersALotTinkersALot Posts: 535
    edited 2013-03-15 14:54
    would an RC airplane in it be a drone? what about an estes rocket with a nose cone camera? What about a balloon, is that a drone?
  • WBA ConsultingWBA Consulting Posts: 2,933
    edited 2013-03-15 15:44
    That is absolutely ridiculous. With wording so vague, I would expect the AMA to be all over it as RC aircraft could be decimated in the state.
  • xanaduxanadu Posts: 3,347
    edited 2013-03-15 17:07
    Good news on the news the other night. Congress is cracking down on the FAA about it - http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/51118873/#51118873
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2013-03-15 17:22
    No problem. Once people find out they can get their beer and pizza delivered with drones, there won't be any law, neither of man nor nature, that will stop the sky from being abuzz with activity.

    Dominos-2-660x374.jpeg
  • dmagnusdmagnus Posts: 271
    edited 2013-03-16 07:23
    And, near me, this just appeared this week in Minneapolis:
    http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/03/14/faa-grounds-local-aerial-photo-business/

    These guys had a really great business going, using their drones for practical, legal purposes. FAA has now shut them down.
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2013-03-16 09:14
    In all my years of flying RC aircraft I have never referred to one as a "drone". I really don't think it is reasonable to lump small RC aircraft into the same category as military hardware. No thanks to DIY Drones either...
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2013-03-16 09:39
    dmagnus wrote:
    FAA has now shut them down.
    This isn't anything new. Commercial use of drone aricraft has always been against FAA regs. But this is about to change, due to recently-passed legislation that will permit such use by 2015.

    Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/technology/drones-with-an-eye-on-the-public-cleared-to-fly.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    -Phil
  • dmagnusdmagnus Posts: 271
    edited 2013-03-16 14:31
    And, again, from Oregon:

    Oregon Company to Sell Drone Defense Technology to Public
    [h=1]The company says it won't knock drones down, but will stop them from 'completing their mission'[/h]

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/15/oregon-company-to-sell-drone-defense-technology-to-public
  • dmagnusdmagnus Posts: 271
    edited 2013-03-16 14:38
    Neither have I but, apparently, the Oregon law is unspecific enough that any RC aircraft with a camera would fall under the law. Got a feeling that will be trumped by the FAA when it eventually gets around to complying with the new law. Notice Government use is immediately ok, but private use will take a few more years and include "certification".
    I don't think the FAA has anything to say about RC flying except that they must stay under 400 feet or so. I've been a pilot for over 40 years (not active anymore) and was an AMA member for decades, but I don't ever remember hearing anything about FAA regulation of RC aircraft.
    I also have a friend who is a pilot, RC enthusiast and professional photographer who has been using RC helis for years to do arial photography. Now he is using a very expensive multi-rotor. Wonder when Wisconsin will go after him...
  • hover1hover1 Posts: 1,929
    edited 2013-03-16 14:49
    W9GFO wrote: »
    In all my years of flying RC aircraft I have never referred to one as a "drone". I really don't think it is reasonable to lump small RC aircraft into the same category as military hardware. No thanks to DIY Drones either...

    I'm with 'ya Rich.

    When did "drone" get attached to anything that flies? It seems all Quad and Hex copters are dumped into this category. Regular Heli's seem immune. Maybe since quad/hex copters look different/military?

    What's next, ban rubber band planes with a BS1 and servos?


    Since we have Hex Copters, why not Octal, Word, Long Copters. :)
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,347
    edited 2013-03-16 14:58
    Texas has a similar bill in the works. The wording is so general that it would cover any unmanned aerial vehicle. In addition to RC planes and quadcopters, I believe this would also include things like model rockets, weather balloons and kites. I've emailed my district representative and talked to an assistant at his office. I've also alerted my local rocket club, and several members have contacted their represetatives and the author of the bill. The bill is currently in committee, and I been checking their schedule to see when they're going to address it. I hoping we can convince our legislators to drop this bill.
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2013-03-16 22:10
    I'm guessing a lot of this anti-drone legislative BS is just some kinda knee-jerk grandstanding reaction that ... uh... well.... in any case, my point is that it's really dumb legislation and probably won't stand a chance once cooler heads prevail.
  • ajwardajward Posts: 1,129
    edited 2013-03-17 01:23
    Our county sheriff is making a case for adding drones to his "arsenal", saying they'll be used to locate lost seniors. Yeah... that's a =huge= problem in these parts. :-|

    Sounds to me like some kid trying to convince his parents to buy the latest video game. "But Mom, it'll improve my hand/eye coordination!"
  • dmagnusdmagnus Posts: 271
    edited 2013-03-17 07:10
    The laws in process exempt the military and law enforcement. Soon, only the government will be allowed to fly "drones". I agree, how did the word drone come to mean our hobby articles - just because they are "unmanned"? Maybe we need to come up with a silly string shooter to protect ourselves against the government drones...
    And, killing US Citizens on US soil without due process is still unconstitutional. The president doesn't get to make that unilateral decision.
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2013-03-17 08:45
    dmagnus wrote: »
    ...And, killing US Citizens on US soil without due process is still unconstitutional. The president doesn't get to make that unilateral decision.

    FBI official: "Mr. President, there's a whole lot of humidity on the outskirts of New Richmond, Wisconsin and its headed straight for town during the Homecoming parade."
    President: "Do we have any capabilities in that area?"
    Air Force General: "Yes sir. I've got three drones in the air right now and tracking it, Sir, each one loaded with enough Drierite to neutralize it. Just say the word."
    President: "Ummmmm......."
  • ctwardellctwardell Posts: 1,716
    edited 2013-03-17 09:26
    FBI official: "Mr. President, there's a truck loaded with Anthrax and Sarin gas cored with low explosives on the outskirts of New Richmond, Wisconsin and its headed straight for town during the Homecoming parade."
    President: "Do we have any capabilities in that area?"
    Air Force General: "Yes sir. I've got three drones in the air right now and tracking it, Sir, each one loaded with enough thermite and napalm to neutralize the attack. Just say the word."
    President: "Has the NSA confirmed this?"
    NSA official: "Yes sir. This is high quality-"
    CIA: "Yes sir, we've confirmed this."
    FBI official: "And the local authorities are completely helpless. They're all at the parade."
    President: "Then I'm ordering immediate action. Quick. Begin jury selection at once!"

    Nobody has suggested that the government cannot take action in such a case ElectricAye. The whole issue is if the government can use drones against people in considers to be a terrorist when they ARE NOT IN THE DIRECT ACT of COMBAT against the country.
    The left has already labeled the Tea Party as terrorist and returning soldiers are considered at risk for committing terrorist acts. Do you think maybe they should just send in a drone and take out a VA hospital?


    C.W.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2013-03-17 10:09
    Guys,

    This discussion is veering into politics, which is contrary to the forum guidelines.

    -Phil
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2013-03-17 10:18
    Guys,

    This discussion is veering into politics, which is contrary to the forum guidelines.

    -Phil

    I agree. My apologies. Once again I have inadvertently hit a neuron or two. I will self-deport my satire from this thread.

    Sorry if it upset anyone.
  • icepuckicepuck Posts: 466
    edited 2013-03-18 20:15
    Like it or not some where down the line politics will have to be discussed if law abiding citizens want to keep big brother from taking away all our high tech toys and dictating which hobbies are safe enough for us to play with.

    Some how, some way big brother is going to need to be re-educated in that not everyone who plays with anything that is RC or autonomous(computer) control is a wana be terrorist. We are here because we want to have fun and to learn something in the process.

    You could look at it from a stand point of accidentally preventing a teenager from becoming an engineer, programmer, or rocket scientist and thus hurting this countries technological future even more.
    -dan
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2013-03-18 20:43
    icepuck wrote: »
    Like it or not some where down the line politics will have to be discussed...

    Oh no! You said the p-word. Don't you know what happens to Dad when you say the-

    explodingheadmont.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1323042418100
  • lardomlardom Posts: 1,659
    edited 2013-03-19 08:28
    "Men in Black" had, I think, a 'neuralizer' which erased memory. It was a wonderful device that could prevent people from coming up with innovative uses for the cell phone and scrub any memory of Albert E. The more I think about it, stone age people probably wanted to ban stones.
  • photomankcphotomankc Posts: 943
    edited 2013-03-19 18:49
    icepuck wrote: »
    Like it or not some where down the line politics will have to be discussed if law abiding citizens want to keep big brother from taking away all our high tech toys and dictating which hobbies are safe enough for us to play with.

    Some how, some way big brother is going to need to be re-educated in that not everyone who plays with anything that is RC or autonomous(computer) control is a wana be terrorist. We are here because we want to have fun and to learn something in the process.

    You could look at it from a stand point of accidentally preventing a teenager from becoming an engineer, programmer, or rocket scientist and thus hurting this countries technological future even more.
    -dan

    The problem is, and will continue to be, that policy is largely legislated from a position of ignorance. Rarely do you hear a political argument over these kinds of things where the facts are brought out in a rational way. Politics to a greater extent used to be an activty that people that were sucessful in some private enterprise undertook for a time. Now it is a career unto itself, a major that is supposed to be meaningful from college, and you have capitols full of people that honestly have no idea why you want to build things when you could just buy the latest iThing, nor do they care a whit if they make it impossible for you to continue to do so. They have done nothing for thier whole working life other than produce more government. People watching Jerrey Springer and Judge Judy don't like drones, so drones are bad, bad things need to be banned. Except of course for the nobel pursuits of the government itself. Fear sells, and they push as much of it as possible.

    I'm sure someday down the line that have the capacity to make mechanical parts in your home is something that you will need to plead permission for as well. Can't have you building what they said you can't buy.

    I have no idea how the term drone is different than say R/C airplane. People were adding cameras to planes before the term 'predator' ever made it to the common toungue. I think there is potential to sell nearly any remote mobile platform that can record activity as 'drone technology'. Copters, planes, hovercraft, or wheeled. There just seems to be no practical end to what needs to be controlled or 'cracked down' on. Someone always needs a pet issue to ride to the next election and banning some geeks from building 'spy drones' is easy as can be.
  • hover1hover1 Posts: 1,929
    edited 2013-03-19 20:11
    photomankc wrote: »
    Copters, planes, hovercraft, or wheeled.

    My hovercrafts are full of eels. No camera or any sort of ordinance. icon7.png
  • Peter KG6LSEPeter KG6LSE Posts: 1,383
    edited 2013-03-19 20:14
    I better tell the CS geeks here at OIT they better not fly that Ardiono ran quad outside.,


    Ill fire off a Nice letter to my people here ..... * Ill have the student body do the same * ......

    thank you for posting this as I had NO clue we had such stupid people in power here in oregon ..


    OK just got a Emal off to some people at OIT , Lets hope I can reach enough angry Geeks to fend this off



    Really I dont see why the CAM is the issue .... I DO have a problem with GPS and a flight path ..... I feel a hobby craft should Never be autonomous ,

    backin the 90s I used to launch rockets with cams ! ;;;
    In 2010 I was involved with a high alt ballon launch .... 90K feet !


    I do support proper training ! If any sizable aircraft is used . as the potential to harm some one is high . the AMA is not really doing training ....... really We need Like in the Ham radio community a way to have varying levels of performance based on flight hours and in competency..
  • TtailspinTtailspin Posts: 1,326
    edited 2013-03-19 20:43
    Naturally, I have reported this thread to the Proper Authorities. The Special Police will be interested in this bit of disadence.
    It's orange jump suits for the lot of you!! A good stint at the re_education camp will do you all good..

    Free-thinkers. Bah!
    Please, Go back to your houses, Turn the TV to the 'correct' channel, Focus on the picture and sound, think of nothing else,
    Assured with the knowledge That The Elected Officials of your government will handle your every need.
    and remember, They call them "Easy" Chairs for a reason...


    As for the subject of banning flying machines with cameras installed, I don't like it!. No sir,
    What, with all the restraining orders and the new taller fences getting put up all around my house,
    it's becoming increasingly difficult to monitor all of my neighbors for suspect activities,
    after all, you can only see so much thru a knot hole or toy periscope.

    So, I for one, could use a fleet of these flying machines! And not with only camaras mounted, mind you,
    I of course, would want the "Justice" Package installed in all of the units of my fleet.
    Imagine the good I could spread!...:thumb::thumb:
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2013-03-19 22:37
    Ttailspin wrote:
    I have reported this thread to the Proper Authorities.

    I've reported all your posts to the grammar police. hover1, it's "ordnance," not "ordinance." Ttailspin, tsk, tsk. "Disadence?" Really? Try "dissidence."

    That will be all for now. Class dismissed! (Mutter, mutter. A pedant's job is never done.)

    -Phil
  • WBA ConsultingWBA Consulting Posts: 2,933
    edited 2013-03-20 00:33
    I think things could be cleared up rather easily if you define Radio Controlled and Drone in this manner:

    Radio Controlled
    : A remotely piloted vehicle in which the pilot has visual contact with the vehicle.

    Drone: A remotely piloted vehicle in which the pilot does NOT have visual contact with the vehicle.

    In other words, if you are remotely piloting a vehicle that you can see with your eyes, it is not a drone.
  • TtailspinTtailspin Posts: 1,326
    edited 2013-03-20 07:50
    ." Ttailspin, tsk, tsk. "Disadence?" Really? Try "dissidence."
    Ahh hah! You fell right into my trap! So now, I have to place you on my neighborhood watch list,
    I am sure a citizen in good standing with the law would not even know how to spell dissidence...

    In fact, I think I must place ALL of you on the list, There is just a little to much education being displayed around here..

    I might change my mind, if you all could join me in a good old fashioned book burning. (after applying for the necessary permits of course. Also, we will have to figure out how to keep a pile of Kindles burning..
    Modern technology, Bah!
  • lardomlardom Posts: 1,659
    edited 2013-03-20 08:04
    I think things could be cleared up rather easily if you define Radio Controlled and Drone in this manner:

    Radio Controlled
    : A remotely piloted vehicle in which the pilot has visual contact with the vehicle.

    Drone: A remotely piloted vehicle in which the pilot does NOT have visual contact with the vehicle.

    In other words, if you are remotely piloting a vehicle that you can see with your eyes, it is not a drone.
    Shh..! The Bureau of Definitions may do an audit.. (You don't want a 3:AM knock on your door)
Sign In or Register to comment.