Don't Over-regulate the Use of Drones

Wednesday, 13 Aug 2014 11:08 AM

By John Stossel

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
Drones — unmanned flying machines — will soon fill our skies. They conjure up fears, especially among some of my fellow libertarians, of spying and death from above.
 
These fears aren't groundless. President Bush approved the use of armed drones against suspected terrorists overseas, and President Obama vastly increased their use. Drones have killed thousands of people in places such as Pakistan and Yemen, countries against which we have not declared war. 
 
Drones keep getting more sophisticated. The Air Force is now developing what it calls MAVs, Micro Air Vehicles, tiny drones that can quietly search for an individual terrorist and then kill him with explosives or even incapacitate him with chemicals.
 
So far, America has killed with drones only outside America. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., famously filibustered Obama's nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA, demanding that Americans first receive clarification on the government's policy regarding use of lethal drones within the U.S. Finally, the attorney general responded, "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
 
Good for Sen. Paul. Technology itself is not evil, but what government does with it should be determined by clear rules.
 
The next controversy will center on the increasing use of "civilian" drones. Researching a documentary, "Policing America," I was surprised to learn that I could buy a "personal" drone for only $500. For another $700, my TV staff added a camera to it. These are terrific devices. Vacationers use them to videotape family trips, farmers to check crops, police to search for missing people.
 
Soon, most everyone might have one. In the six months since I began researching "Policing America," drone prices have dropped sharply. Recently we bought one — admittedly, a flimsy one — for just $50. That includes a camera.
 
Our too-big government will try to quash this innovation. This week The Wall Street Journal reported that government standards "are at least four years away" and quoted a bureaucrat who said, "The incremental approach is essential."
 
So the FAA sends "cease and desist" orders to restaurants that use drones to deliver food to remote areas, realtors who show off houses, movie makers and journalists who use drones to get aerial footage of disasters, protests, celebrity weddings, etc.
 
"Commercial use" is illegal, says government (regulators don't like business). Fortunately, some entrepreneurs ignore the restrictions. Martin Scorsese used a drone to videotape parts of "Wolf of Wall Street." It's great when people practice civil disobedience against idiot regulators.
 
The FAA is right to worry about air safety, but that can be handled less intrusively with rules that ban drones near airports.
 
Of course, private drone use can get creepy. A woman in Connecticut recently attacked a drone operator at a beach because she was angry about being spied upon.
 
Like a good libertarian, Sen. Paul realizes that ambiguous property rights are the real problem. He jokes that his neighbor has a drone: "If I see it over my property, my shotgun's coming out."
 
America already has peeping-Tom laws. I can look through my neighbor's window, but I can't legally get my stepladder and spy over his fence. State courts will work this stuff out.
 
As usual, the market will probably produce the best solutions, just as algorithmic anti-spam programs proved more effective than useless anti-spam laws.
 
An aerospace engineer emailed me that he's created a Drone Shield you can use to spot unwelcome intrusions.
 
That will get trickier as drones become smaller and quieter — I've seen video of new ones that resemble hummingbirds. But detection technology will improve as well. That constant feedback and competition is how all technology advances.
 
Technology itself is rarely a bad thing. What matters is the endless power of the market to refine and improve how we use it.
 
If government will just relax its regulatory chokehold, private citizens will find safe ways to deliver food, rescue lost cats, and fill the skies with happy new possibilities.
 
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "No They Can't! Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break," and "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." Read more reports from John Stossel — Click Here Now.
 
 

© Creators Syndicate Inc.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Despite Media Reports, America Is Doing Fine

Wednesday, 01 Oct 2014 09:05 AM

Terrorism is a threat. But deaths from war are a fraction of what they were half a century ago, when we fought World War . . .

Govt Regulation Strangles Freedom

Wednesday, 24 Sep 2014 08:33 AM

Neither party really believes in letting individuals do what we want. . . .

Immigration Policy Borders on Absurd

Wednesday, 17 Sep 2014 13:21 PM

America needs immigrants. Immigrants co-founded most of Silicon Valley's start-ups. The Patent Office says immigrants in . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved