3 votes

Wired: Drone Pilot Fights for Right to Profit in the Unmanned Skies

Not sure what the general consensus is within the Daily Paul community on private drone operators. As a Paul supporter and private drone builder/operator I have pretty much resolved things in my mind. I hope this is an interesting article for those trying to stay abreast of this subject. (The comments section is awesome)

Drone Pilot Fights for Right to Profit in the Unmanned Skies

By David Kravets 10.09.13

On June 30, 1956, two airliners flying over the Grand Canyon collided. All 128 passengers and crew aboard the planes perished. It was the first U.S. air disaster with more than 100 fatalities. The accident made clear that the nation’s burgeoning air-travel industry needed better safety oversight. Citing the “tragic losses of human life,” President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation creating the Federal Aviation Administration in 1958.

Six decades and a zillion regulations later, the agency that supervises everything from air-worthiness to passenger gadget use has taken legal action for the first time against an on-ground pilot — an operator of a styrofoam, 4.5-pound Ritewing Zephyr-powered glider.

Continued: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/drones-at-a-crossro...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Drones don't kill people,

People kill people.

Not sure why this needs to be said but last time this came up I recall at least a few being hugely in favor of simply banning all drones. I think it is intellectually inconsistent to support something like that, the same goes for every inanimate object from drugs to weapons to t-shirts. If you outlaw X, only outlaws have X.


They are working ways around that problem. In the future, machines will have the ability to kill without human interaction. I guess we will have to blame the programmers right? How about the mechanics or the engineers? They are all guilty if you ask me. Those who profit from a crime are guilty of a crime.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

Sure, anyone who is complicit

Sure, anyone who is complicit in the commissioning of a machine that actually carries out murder, would be the one(s) responsible for the murder. But as with all technology, no matter how terrible, the only result of banning it is making sure only the bad guys have it (often the government).


I looked up and down the US Code. I could find the rights for a living being to own a firearm. However, no where did I find the law that allows police, cops, or government workers to own a gun. They are lawless.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything

Individuals should have a right to own guns. Police and lawmakers should have rights just like the rest of us. They just shouldn't have special treatment or be immune to law. Moreover, just because there isn't a law that explicitly allows a sovereign citizen to do something, does not mean they can't do it. Quite the contrary. There needs to be a law explicitly forbidding it, and ideally that law would only be created with the intent to prevent people from infringing on the rights of others.


Living men are not born with titles. The original 13th amendment clearly states that should a man put on a title, he is not part of the government of and by the people. Police do not have the right to have weapons and an act of treason is what they are doing. Ideally, people would learn the law before claiming to enforce it.

I know this is hard to understand but OFFICER TOM JONES is a legal entity that is bonded and insured and Tom Jones is a living man. When preforming police duty, this person claims that Tom Jones is immune because his remedy to an injured party is the bond of OFFICER.

Police and lawmakers have no rights according to the founding fathers. They fought hard so the British could not use their titles of nobility. In the end, we fail to even understand the complexity of reality.

Do you understand?

In short, I am not asking you if your competent. You are telling me you are not.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

I agree with you. I believe

I agree with you. I believe that this technology will become increasingly more capable and will have a huge impact on many different industries. Tools like these should not be left in the hands of only a select few.

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. - Heinlein


Don't get me wrong. I am not a gun grabber. That is to say I do not believe thugs should given firearms and run around in black uniforms killing people. Most can't accept the fact that the government is nothing more than actors in costumes.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.

I apologize, did not mean to

I apologize, did not mean to infer that you were a gun grabber. I should have phrased it differently. Basically, I view the as a tool/tool user problem. Any tool can be misused or abused, but for the most part, they are used correctly and appropriately. In my mind this argument applies to these so called "drones".

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. - Heinlein


No worries. I am enjoying the banter.

All rights reserved and no rights waived.