So Wait: I Need A Trained Bald Eagle To Neutralize A Nuisance Drone? Yeppers, According to Federal Law

One of these intruders snapping your wife on camera while she's sun bathing in the nude? You are not allowed by law to shoot it down . You need to rent or get a bird of prey to bring it down.




The stories reeled off in the recent WSJ 'Mansions' piece ('Spies From Above', June 21) had me truly wondering whether this country has truly gone round the bend or is merely in a temporary nervous breakdown.  The accounts spanned the gamut but all focused on the increasing invasion of air space and private space now - by drones. 

For example, we read of Shelley West, 54, who happened to be sunbathing in the nude behind the 6 foot high stone wall of her gated community in Indio, CA, last April  To her shock and surprise she began dozing off when the faint whirring sound made her realize a drone was directly above her.  In Ms. West's own words, quoted in the piece:

"If I had a BB gun I would have loved to....shoot it down!"

Ah, my fair lady, point well taken but that rash (but just!) action might have earned you a trip to the slammer.  As the piece goes on to point out for anyone who also harbors such visions of retribution for a nuisance drone:

"It is a federal crime to bring down a drone or any other aircraft regulated by the FAA, according to the federal agency. It is also illegal to use jamming equipment to interrupt the signal between the drone and its operator, per Federal Communications Commission regulations."

Even if the drone is outside your kids' bedroom window with camera aimed inside?  Yep, you cannot shoot the little beastie  down with your Glock .45 or jam it to  interrupt the invasive signals the renegade drone operator is sending to get whatever kicks.

The article goes on to say that "nervous homeowners" desperate to reclaim their privacy even beseech an outfit called 'Drone Shield', asking for weapons to "defeat the drone and take it down".  However, Oleg Vornik - DroneShield CEO - must break the news to these forlorn folks that "it can't legally sell any equipment to ordinary U.S. citizens."

So what are desperate people being invaded by these flying spies supposed to do? Just grin and bear it?  Well, no.  One option is to buy one of the company's "drone detection" products to pinpoint the location of the drone operator. You can then phone it in to the nearest FAA office....if you can get a human on the other end  of the line.

The other option is to purchase or rent a drone-hunting bird of prey.   For example, 'Guard from Above',   a company based in The Hague (Holland), trains bald eagles to hunt down and immobilize drones.  Most clients who can afford them, want to have the birds on patrol 24/7 - but that means based at their residence - which "requires a bird quarter".   This is a specially protected space where the birds "can bathe,  feed and move around comfortably based on the company guidelines".   These have to then comply with various country, state and county regulations, according to CEO and founder, Sjoerd Hoogendoorn.

Oh yeah, before I forget, "a professional bird handler is also required."   Can't just have any doofus managing these specially trained avians!  Part of their job is to "feed the birds several kinds of meat"  and "keep tabs on them using GPS trackers."

Among the most baffling aspects we also learn in the piece, which one supposes has been written tongue-in -cheek (but maybe not) is:

"FAA regulations are designed to protect the safety of the skies, not personal privacy and residential security."

Well, pardon me if I laugh.  The FAA "protect the safety of the skies" when thousands of these flying doodads are invading commercial air space almost every day  - and airline pilots often have to veer to miss them?  Give me a break.  IF the FAA were truly serious about such "protection", then: a) they would never have allowed so many to be unregulated in the first place, and b) should have pushed hard (against the drone makers) to have operators qualify by taking actual pilot's tests.  After all, they are piloting these craft in air space and often making dangerous incursions into commercial air space.

As I have argued before, all operators of drones - of whatever scale- need to be licensed to fly them, operate them. You shouldn't be able to just amble into a hobby store and buy one like you'd buy a model plane kit.  This is especially so given the FAA is granting the same gravitas vis-a vis no artificial interference (shooting, jamming) rules , for example, as it grants to commercial planes in U.S. airspace.   In other words, if drones are also regarded as aircraft that "can't be brought down" - i.e. because they are "regulated by the FAA" - then it stands to reason ALL the regulations that apply ought to conform to the SAME stringent standards.

There cannot be differing standards for airplanes and drones if the same severe prohibitions of interference apply.

 That means all drone operators must possess the same qualifications, basically, as actual pilots - and demonstrate analogous responsibilities.  (Indeed, this had been considered by the FAA back in 2014, before manufacturer and congressional blowback forced them to back down.) But if the same rigorous standards for operators don't apply, the FAA needs to admit a certain subset of drones are just nuisance toys which can  -on occasion - be shot down or jammed, if they invade citizens' air space, home space for mischievous or malicious purposes..

The problem then inheres in two differing sets of regulations, one vastly more severe, i.e. for formal aircraft:  planes, helicopters etc., the other for drones - which can be literal toys - but threaten commercial air space and personal privacy. It is exactly this bifurcation in rules and practice which poses the problem

Fortunately, as the article goes on to point out there are a "patchwork of state and local laws"  which have come into practice, and evidently trump the  FAA's too soft rules on drones. California, for example, passed a 2015 law prohibiting drones from entering the airspace above someone's land to capture visual images of them.  Other states have laws that prohibit using drones for peeping or spying.  As we learn from one attorney, Lydia Hilton:

"Just because the FAA says a drone operator may access the air space under certain circumstances doesn't give the operator a pass under state laws."

Again, this wouldn't be an issue if only responsible operators were active..  Which could be ensured if the FAA demanded operators take a modified pilot's license test instead of pandering to any and all drone consumers - so the manufacturers can make $$$, huge profits - on the sale of dangerous toys in the wrong hands..

The "lack of clarity" regarding precedents for drone law is also an issue, but I regard it more as a lack of courage. Mainly of the FAA to do its damned job and impose rigorous regulations of drones - like it also should have before certifying Boeing's woeful MAX 8.  Waiting  instead for two horrific crashes and nearly 300 dead to finally ground the jet.  Will it take a drone- aircraft collision before it also wakes up on that score?

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/12/drone-disruptions-close-calls-show.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/06/faa-needs-to-prevent-drones-taking-over.html

The "5G' Hype - If 5G Is So great Why Are So Many Mobilizing Active Resiustance?

5G,  ...the "Fifth Generation" - putatively the greatest thing since sliced bread  - expanding and realizing the "internet of things".   SO you can communicate with your fridge, your car, your TV, anything - any device in the home  you desire. . So why are so many not seeing it as such a benefit and are actively mobilized against it?

The essence of the problem roiling most communities, can be gleaned from the attached graphic.  The manifestation of monstrous towers laden with cellular antennas has enraged many - even forcing a lot of towers to come down. Case in point?  Residents of Denver's Riviera Apartment were astounded when they confronted a 30-foot tall green pole appearing a few feet in front of their building entrance.  The unsightly contraption, installed by Verizon Communications Inc. was designed to improve telephone service in the area but residents complained loudly about the placement. Months later, it was gone.

But you can bet this is only the 'first shot' in a continuing resistance as in the months ahead millions of Americans encounter similar poles or notice antennas sprouting on utility poles, street lamps and traffic lights - and all over their neighborhoods. This is because all four national cellphone companies are pushing to build out their networks with a profusion of small local cells to keep their data hungry customers  satisfied - oh, and lay the groundwork for the much ballyhooed  fifth generation or 5G service.

But while their first line customers may be happy many other citizens aren't and that includes official in cities that don't want their locations looking like something out of a techie horror thriller. But never mind, more than 100,000 small cells are already wired up across the U.S. according to industry research firm S&P Global.   In addition, state and federal policy makers are mostly backing the wireless carriers.  Federal Communications Commission rules passed in March exempt small cell deployments from certain historic preservation and environmental reviews.

In other words, if intruding cell structures, polls are built near historic preservation sites - say a Civil War era home - or near a lake or special reservoir, there will be no need to review the proximity issues or effects.  Further, a bill now in congress would deem small cell applications granted if local governments fail to act within 31 days.  Dozens of state laws, as in the case of fracking (like here in Colo.) also restrict local government control over cell projects.

Despite these aggressive moves for implementation, the risks of 5G systems are becoming ever more apparent even as their environmental impacts are criticized.    Truth be told, almost every 5G advance comes with a new set of security worries.  The biggest concern by far is the expected flood of connected household devices- many of which have already been  hacked (like child bedroom monitors) and also used in denial of service attacks. (Such as one in late 2016 that caused major services such as Netflix and Twitter to be unreachable for a day).

Experts also fear that - with 5 G- the telecommunications system itself will become so central to everyday life it will create an inviting huge target for malicious actors.  There are also real worries that  5 G will make it easier for hackers to turn autonomous vehicles and implantable devices (e.g. pacemakers and Watchmen) into lethal weapons.)

According to Bruce Porter, chief information security officer at Expel Inc - a cyber security startup in Herndon VA:

"As 5G facilitates a vast expansion of networks and devices they will start to become large targets and ripe for attack. We have a fairly large problem ahead to figure out how to secure all the components of 5G".

Instilling more trepidation, U.S. vulnerability could grow if domestic companies lose the race with foreign companies to dominate 5G technology. (Especially if an American company for example, comes to rely extensively on Chinese technology)

Incredibly, many U.S. officials insist their approach to securing the 5G future is working so far, despite the fact there have been no real world, live stress tests on the system.  According to one FCC Republican,  Brendan Carr:

"It's a challenge. No way around it. But it's something everyone I've talked to is taking seriously".

Well, we'll see how seriously if an when the next central meridian, coronal mass ejection collides with planet Earth.

GOP Congress Now Has Your Internet Privacy For Sale - What Can You DO?

Unlike in Europe, where governments respect their citizens, our current incarnation sees us mainly as chattel to do with as it pleases, unless our votes are needed. For example, in the EU strict privacy rules apply to protect citizen information. It cant just be bought and sold at the drop of a hat, nor can one - on doing a Google search for a name- find all kinds of options for buying further info, records etc., including address, voting record, bank account balance etc.

Contrast this with the GOP congress which on Tuesday last week voted to overturn privacy rules that previously required telecom companies to get customers' permission before sharing their web browsing and app history use with third parties. And, of course, Trump is also in favor of this - given he respects no citizens, even his own voters (mocking them not long after the election Nov. 8th by saying at a Louisiana rally, "Yeah folks, I just needed your votes, don't need you anymore!")

So no surprise that the White House announced Wednesday that Trump intends to sign the bill. This then would formally undo the rules adopted last fall by the Federal Communications Commission. It will be a boon to Verizon Communications, Inc., Comcast Corp. and A.T. and T. Inc. which are all building huge digital ad businesses.

What sort of information will now be up for grabs and sale to the telecoms? It includes: your full website browsing history - including porno sites, all the apps you use, the TV shows you watch, the stores and restaurants you patronize, the lists of all your Facebook friends, all the news articles they read (as well as you), where they bank and shop - along with their physical location. In other words, it presents a veritable windfall to any sharks wanting to track you or your circle - and target you all for future ads, pop-ups.

Basically, this disgusting congressional action, mainly on the part of the "business party" or GOP,  now gives companies and ad mongers comfort they can profile any customer behavior.  If you, for example, happen to visit some favorite porno site, your frequency of visits will now be tabulated and sent to any porn companies that may find that info useful. The next thing you know you will be receiving scads of porn catalogs in the mail, and likely in email too.

If you read regularly nutso conspiracy tripe from sites like InfoWars and Breitbart.com then those tracks will also be peddled to whoever wants them. Basically also, you won't know who gets that information or exactly how they use it.

Is there anything you can do about it? Probably the easiest tactic is to regularly go to "private window browsing". If you have Windows 10, you will be able to spot three tiny dots in the upper right corner of your screen. If you left click on it, you will see two upper options: new window, and new private window.  By selecting the second, you get a search field within which any entries you type will be private, in other words not accessible to the snoops.

What you shouldn't do, if  you value your privacy, is nothing.

Hasta la Vista to the Open Internet. - Blame DC Appeals Court!

Thanks to a D. C. Appeals Court, the most important next to the Supreme Court, the era of an "open internet"  may well be numbered. From here on out, if the ruling stands, service providers such as Verizon and AT&T  can treat the net as their personal "toll road" -  giving preferential treatment to websites willing to pay a higher price for access and speed.  That means they can get on and you will likely be eating their dust, left in the back lanes and unable to display that Facebook image, or upload that Youtube video.

The court issued a decision that triggered dismay and anger among supporters of an Internet open and free to all, overruling the Federal Communications Commission and setting the stage for a near future in which - analogous to the larger society  - the richest 1 percent will get to play and dominate the information spectrum while the rest of us little guys suck salt. Obviously, this leads some cynics and curmudgeons to believe that courts can now be bought.

The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is a potentially lethal blow to net neutrality – the principle that the Internet should be available equally to anyone who wishes to use it as a medium for creativity and information, regardless of who they are and no matter the size of their checkbooks.

In a lawsuit filed by Verizon, the court ruled  that “the FCC cannot subject companies that provide Internet service to the same type of regulation that the agency imposes on phone companies,”

 The New York Times reported. “It cited the FCC’s own decision in 2002 that Internet service was not a telecommunications service – like telephone or telegraph – but an information service, a classification that limits the FCC’s authority.”

The celebrity paper Variety noted, “The decision has broad implications for Internet businesses of all kinds, including Google, Yahoo, Netflix, Amazon.com, Apple and Facebook — as well as traditional media companies that rely on broadband networks for content distribution. The ruling for now establishes that government regulators can’t dictate how Internet service providers manage their networks and how they choose to prioritize data.”

Meanwhile, in an Ask Me Anything discussion on Reddit Tuesday afternoon, telecommunications policy expert Susan Crawford further described the implications of the court decision:

It means that the major providers of high-speed Internet access in the US, who have systematically divided markets and tacitly agreed mostly not to compete with one another, can treat high-speed Internet access like a cable TV service. They can be gatekeepers, charge content providers (any business) for the privilege of reaching us, the subscribers; and, of course, charge us. A lot. For lousy service compared to, say, Stockholm or Seoul.

In an official statement, Craig Aaron, president and CEO of the media reform group Free Press added, “[The court’s] ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the biggest phone and cable companies — and in the absence of any oversight, these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers’ communications at will… They’ll establish fast lanes for the few giant companies that can afford to pay exorbitant tolls and reserve the slow lanes for everyone else.”

So, enjoy your open net while you can, kiddies! Post those Youtube videos and family photos to your heart's content now, because tomorrow......well....it could take hours!