A new year and the start of new state legislative sessions brings a new crop of absurdly broad and unconstitutional proposals to ban FPV / personal drones.
First up this year, Washington state: http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...Bills/2178.htm
HOUSE BILL 2178
AN ACT Relating to unmanned aircraft; adding a new chapter to Title 14 RCW; prescribing penalties; and declaring an emergency.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 The legislature finds that technological developments in unmanned aircraft have expanded the vehicles' capacity to be widely deployed in our state and in our communities. The legislature further finds that the recreational use of certain small unmanned aircraft is exempt from federal regulation under the federal aviation administration modernization and reform act of 2012. The potential for these small unmanned aircraft to be operated in close proximity to human dwellings and activities presents opportunities for widespread recreational use and enjoyment. At the same time, the recreational use of unmanned aircraft increases the likelihood of physical trespass onto private property and invasions of personal privacy. The legislature intends to prohibit the unauthorized use of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above private property.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Person" includes any individual, corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, limited liability company, trust, joint venture, or any other legal or commercial entity and any successor, representative, agent, agency, or instrumentality thereof.
(2) "Personal information" means any information that: (a) Describes, locates, or indexes anything about an individual including, but not limited to, his or her social security number, driver's license number, agency-issued identification number, student identification number, real or personal property holdings derived from tax returns, and his or her education, financial transactions, medical history, ancestry, religion, political ideology, or criminal or employment record; or (b) affords a basis for inferring personal characteristics, such as finger and voice prints, photographs, or things done by or to such individual, and the record of his or her presence, registration, or membership in an organization or activity, or admission to an institution.
(3)(a) "Sensing device" means a device capable of acquiring personal information from its surroundings through any means including, but not limited to, cameras, thermal detectors, microphones, chemical detectors, radiation gauges, and wireless receivers in any frequency.
(b) "Sensing device" does not include equipment whose sole function is to provide information directly necessary for safe air navigation or piloting of an unmanned aircraft.
(4) "Unmanned aircraft" means an aircraft that is operated without physical human presence on board the aircraft and operated either:
(a) Pursuant to the exemption for recreational uses established in the special rule for model aircraft of the federal aviation administration modernization and reform act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 Sec. 336, "special rule for model aircraft"); or
(b) Without an experimental airworthiness certificate or other authorization by the federal aviation administration.
(5) "Washington state airspace" means all airspace within the territorial limits of this state that is within class G airspace, outside of five statute miles from any airport, heliport, seaplane base, spaceport, or other location with aviation activities, and not otherwise classified as controlled by the federal aviation administration.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3 (1) Except as provided in section 4 of this act, no person may operate in Washington state airspace an unmanned aircraft that is equipped with a sensing device.
(2) A violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4 The prohibition under section 3 of this act does not apply to the operation of an unmanned aircraft that is equipped with a sensing device if the following conditions are met:
(1) The unmanned aircraft is clearly and conspicuously labeled with the name and contact information of the aircraft's owner and operator; and
(2) The unmanned aircraft is flown in Washington state airspace above private property, and the landowner and any tenants who have a right to occupy the property have consented to the operation after having received actual notice that the aircraft is equipped with a sensing device; or
(3) The unmanned aircraft is flown in the airspace above public lands in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the rights of others and the operation is not otherwise prohibited by law or rule.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5 Any person operating an unmanned aircraft in the airspace of this state is liable for all damages that state or local government property may sustain as a result of illegal or negligent operation of the unmanned aircraft. When the operator is not the owner of the unmanned aircraft but is operating or moving it with the express or implied permission of the owner, the owner and the operator are jointly and severally liable for any damage. Damage to any state or local government property may be recovered in a civil action instituted in the name of the state of Washington by the department of transportation or other affected government agency. Any measure of damage determined by the state or local government to its property under this section is prima facie the amount of damage caused thereby and is presumed to be the amount recoverable in any civil action therefor. The damages available under this section include the incident response costs, including traffic control, incurred by the department of transportation or other state or local agency.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6 Nothing in this chapter may be construed to limit a party's ability to bring an action, including an action for damages, based on rights conferred by other state or federal law.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 7 Sections 1 through 6 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 14 RCW.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8 This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately.
As you can see this bill is expressly targeted at hobbyists, while leaving commercial users with FAA authorization completely alone. It bans any RC aircraft from carrying any "sensing device" that is not essential for operation of the aircraft (whatever that means), except over private property where everyone with a property interest below has consented, or over public property.
The bill is authored by:
Rep. Jeff Morris
(D) 40th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
Olympia Office:
436A Legislative Building
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
(360) 786-7970
E-mail
The bill's current status is listed here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...2178&year=2013
At this time, it has just been pre-filed for introduction, and is not yet assigned to a committee. Once introduced, however, it could very well be assigned to the Technology and Economic Development Committee, of which Morris is the chair, making it much more likely to pass out of committee. Morris is also on the transportation committee, which it could also be assigned to.
I hope Washington FPVers and drone enthusiasts can get on top of this. Start writing and meeting with your state representatives NOW! This bill has the same problems as similar ones last year, namely it is likely preempted by federal law since the FAA (probably) has exclusive jurisdiction over all US airspace, and even if not preempted it likely violates the First Amendment by instituting a blanket ban on amateur aerial photography using unmanned aircraft, while leaving manned aircraft and commercial unmanned aircraft unaffected. The sooner your legislators understand this, the better.
As soon as the bill is assigned to a committee, every personal drone enthusiast in Washington should try to set up meetings with each committee member to explain your concerns with this bill, and make sure to sign up to testify at any committee hearings on it. If it all possible, it is best to kill this sort of thing in committee before it even makes it to the House floor.
The DIY drone community will need to monitor this one closely....
Comments
Matter's not to me, the fact remains... there is NO reason for this LAW to begin with, this is nothing more then PRE LAW. Things are LEGAL in this Country until a law says otherwise, Not... you make a law then its legal.
Just to clarify, yes the bill has changed substantially since I originally posted this article, and it no longer bears the threat it used to. At the time I wrote this, the title was accurate because banning all hobbyist overflight of private property would effectively make FPV illegal, or at least very burdensome to practice legally. That is no longer the case. Unfortunately, I cannot update the main article without yanking it from public availability and sending it back to languish in the moderation queue. But so you know, things are no longer as dire as my original article suggests.
I do not know how you get your foresight of there intent, but I don’t care intend or otherwise, there is NO reason for this LAW, Yes it would be another LAW, SO WHAT, just another LAW that’s pointless. You defeated your argument; when you confirmed my statement the LAW’s are already on the books. This has nothing to do with privacy… this is my point, there selling this thru FEAR. Not to mention you are completely ignoring the statements I made from the start of this post. I am sure the language has changed on the bill, due to the International viewership of this (INDUSTRY KILLING LAW ) it’s called damage control.
Your statement: The bill, as it is currently written, leaves UAV operators with pretty much unrestricted access to Class G airspace, stating only that the operator cannot use the device with the intent to invade privacy. This is a win for you and I as an operator, and the private property owner seeking protection of privacy
UAV operators already have unrestricted access to whatever is available now, what authority did this come from. FAA regulates the SKY’S Not the State or local government. Nothing in this bill does anything for anyone that they cannot already do NOW, it will ONLY TAKE AWAY already established rights. You admit the laws are already on the books so that just leaves CONTROL. Law Makers are already controlling HEALTH CRARE. Maybe work on that and STOP DESTROYING BUSINESS.
"Bill Introduced to Ban Hobbyist Drones in Washington State" on DIY Drones
You have the title of the article thread correct. Unfortunately the title did not reflect the reality of the bill that was introduced, though it was close. The title certainly does not reflect the intent of the legislature. In any case the language of the bill has changed since this thread was introduced.
I agree with your statement that there are already laws prohibiting the invasion of privacy on the books. There is always a danger in adding new legislation, but there can also be a benefit.
The bill, as it is currently written, leaves UAV operators with pretty much unrestricted access to Class G airspace, stating only that the operator cannot use the device with the intent to invade privacy. This is a win for you and I as an operator, and the private property owner seeking protection of privacy.
If it makes you feel any better, the Left leaning ACLU is spearheading a legal push to make sure that the right to use recording devices on RC aerial vehicles is protected under the First Amendment's concept of Freedom of Expression.
If you have not done so, I invite you to read the bill in its original form, and in its revised form, with the links below:
I do not know how you get your foresight of there intent, but I don’t care intend or otherwise, there is NO reason for this LAW, Yes it would be another LAW, SO WHAT, just another LAW that’s pointless. You defeated your argument; when you confirmed my statement the LAW’s are already on the books. This has nothing to do with privacy… this is my point, there selling this thru FEAR. Not to mention you are completely ignoring the statements I made from the start of this post. I am sure the language has changed on the bill, due to the International viewership of this (INDUSTRY KILLING LAW ) it’s called damage control.
Your statement: The bill, as it is currently written, leaves UAV operators with pretty much unrestricted access to Class G airspace, stating only that the operator cannot use the device with the intent to invade privacy. This is a win for you and I as an operator, and the private property owner seeking protection of privacy
UAV operators already have unrestricted access to whatever is available now, what authority did this come from. FAA regulates the SKY’S Not the State or local government. Nothing in this bill does anything for anyone that they cannot already do NOW, it will ONLY TAKE AWAY already established rights. You admit the laws are already on the books so that just leaves CONTROL. Law Makers are already controlling HEALTH CRARE. Maybe work on that and STOP DESTROYING BUSINESS.
I agree with your statement that there are already laws prohibiting the invasion of privacy on the books. There is always a danger in adding new legislation, but there can also be a benefit.
The bill, as it is currently written, leaves UAV operators with pretty much unrestricted access to Class G airspace, stating only that the operator cannot use the device with the intent to invade privacy. This is a win for you and I as an operator, and the private property owner seeking protection of privacy.
If it makes you feel any better, the Left leaning ACLU is spearheading a legal push to make sure that the right to use recording devices on RC aerial vehicles is protected under the First Amendment's concept of Freedom of Expression.
If you have not done so, I invite you to read the bill in its original form, and in its revised form, with the links below:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%2...
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%2...
Ron, there is no "Democrat War" on the RC Aircraft/Drone Industry. Morriss and Morrell were attempting to put together a piece of legislation that would protect privacy while still allowing for the recreational use of UAV's. In my opinion they needed a little guidance.
HB2178 was open to public testimony on Jan 16th. I testified and the committee subsequently submitted bill revisions that addressed the primary concerns of most UAV hobbyists. The bill excludes regulation for government/commercial use of UAV's leaving that up to the Feds.
The Legislature was entirely reasonable and was suprisingly sensitive to the concerns of UAV enthusiasts. Of course the bill has not become law yet. It could still be modified, but as it sits I think that it is a good balance between the protection of privacy and the freedom to fly.
The bill is authored by:Rep. Jeff Morris (D) 40th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT. WA State... Has taken it upon himself to BAN an entire industry.
Tell him how you feel about it... Jeff Morris Mount Vernon LEG 360-786-7970
Democrat WAR ON THE RC AIRCRAFT / DRONE INDUSTRY...
The bill is authored by:Rep. Jeff Morris (D) 40th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT WA State. I find if disgraceful that after a couple of years of Pro UAV, Gov. / press gloating UAV colleges, drone development and research in Washington State. Only after to give them a degree to no were, People of the State and even the world are now going to be banned of yet another industry before it could even get off the ground. Law Makers promised to open the sky to drones, nice since the rest of the World is already using them...2015 the sky's will open up to someone but it wont be AMERICA. "LIED TOO AGAIN!"
So what if a UAV operator is searching for a lost child in a suburb?
This amendment won't work.
You have the chance to do something good and you mess it up with prudery.
It seams to me, in America you can go and buy a grenade launcher at a hardware store with potential to blow up ever house in the street and that's OK, but you can't look in their windows. Your culture has some real issues!
We Australians are odd but not nearly as confused as American.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next