Latest in Lawfare Drone Smackdown
Over at Defense One, Patrick Tucker has an interesting article headlined: "Did the White House Use Drone Killing Technology?" It opens:
At about 3 a.m. on Monday morning, a small quadcopter drone, or unmanned aerial vehicle, crashed on the White House lawn. White House officials said that the drone, by itself, was unarmed and didn’t represent a threat.
"Drones: 1, FAA: 0" is the headline of Ryan Calo's article in Forbes.com about the overturning of an FAA fine against a domestic drone operator. Those who remember the FAA's faintly absurd intervention in the Lawfare Drone Smackdown sometime back, won't find this altogether surprising.
Courtesy of my old friend Steve Renaker---computer programmer, maker of harpsichords, and menace to toy helicopters everywhere. Steve writes on Facebook about this video, "Office hijinks for the day---shooting down helicopters with rubber bands.
Robot watchers likely know about the FAA’s recent solicitation of applications from entities desiring to operate one of six experimental test sites for domestic drones.
Last year, Congress ordered the FAA to figure out how to bring drones into the national airspace, and on a broad scale, by late 2015. Thus the test site program, an interim measure meant to help the agency to compile operational data about domestic drone flights. Privacy comes into play here. In particular, the FAA in February also as
As the co-creator of the Lawfare Drone Smackdown and the publisher (though not the baker) of this drone strike cake, I should perhaps check myself before cringing at other people's drone humor. But I can't help but ask at this point what's going on over at the New York Times?
From the shameless self-promotion department, this: last week Brookings published my recent paper on the integration of unmanned aircraft systems---drones---into our national airspace.
The piece identifies: (1) key benchmarks set by the FAA Modernization and Authorization Act, the statute behind the integration process; (2) the agency's progress to date in meeting those benchmarks; and (3) core policy issues that must be addressed before late 2015---the so-called "deadline" for integration of privately- as well a
Those of you who followed the Lawfare Drone Smackdown will be interested in this post on DIY Drones:
We had a a great time at the Drone Games at the Groupon offices in SF today. (They used to be called the Drone Olympics until they got a cease-and-desist from the Olympic Organizing Committee). Nine teams competed, all using Parrot AR.Drones running Node.js software.
Most of the press coverage of the Lawfare Drone Smackdown has focused, understandably enough, on the FAA's intervention in the event. In this post, however, I want to focus on some of the lessons of the event itself. The Smackdown was a game, not an attempt at a realistic simulation---a kind of a spoof, in some ways. But it ends up, in a parable-like fashion, representing and distilling real issues pointedly. In this post, which will be my last substantive post on the Smackdown, I want to highlight three such lessons.
Washingtonian writer and respected, strict-constructionist Smackdown judge Shane Harris has this piece on last Sunday's Main Event. Here's how it begins:
Sunday was a great day for flying. Flying drones, that is.
Carrie Johnson had this piece about the Smackdown on NPR’s “All Things Considered” yesterday. It begins:
National Security Experts Go Rogue For 'Drone Smackdown'