Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 191


I didn't actually say that, but since you mention it, it's true. The Constitution does forbid it from using its power EXCEPT to the extent necessary to help regulate Interstate Commerce.

That's the way it works, man. I didn't invent the damned thing.

By the way: "Class G" airspace is COMPLETELY UNCONTROLLED by the FAA. Maybe you should read your own sources.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 191

You're claiming they have no jurisdiction- the FAA, Congress, and accepted constitutional law ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

No, they don't. "Accepted Constitutional Law" says that the Federal government has authority ONLY over the items specifically enumerated in the Constitution. One of those items is the Interstate Commerce Clause, which gives the Federal government to regulate some aspects of interstate commerce.

The Interstate Commerce Clause was the basis of authority for the Air Commerce Act of 1926, which was effectively the creation of the FAA. In fact it was a bureau of the Commerce Department. Look it up.

Regardless of attempted Federal expansion, the Constitution only gives the Federal government the power it gives it. No more, no less. Congress does not have authority to lawfully expand its own authority, nor the Executive Branch, nor the Judicial Branch.

So you decide: is the Constitution a valid document, or is it not? If it is, then the FAA can lawfully control only airspace that is regularly used in interstate commerce. That is the basis for ALL of its authority. No matter how many "regulations" it wants to pass.

If the Constitution is not valid, then screw it, it doesn't matter. The government could do whatever it wanted until it was overthrown... as it surely would be, and a new Constitution implemented.

Comment Re:I think this is fair. (Score 1) 191

Port addresses are not part of the ISP's business, either. That is an internal matter for the networks/routers at source and destination, not in between.

My ISP, for example, has absolutely no business knowing (or caring) whether I am doing SSH over port 22 or port 23456. It's just plain not their affair and should have absolutely nothing to do with how my packets are routed by ISPs.

Today's "common carriers" do in fact concern themselves with more than just the layer responsible for directing the connection from sender to receiver.

But they should not. That is the whole point being discussed here. It isn't essential for their services and it's private information.

Further, if they intentionally redirect my packets, in any way that wasn't essential for internet routing, they're interfering with a private communication, which is illegal for a common carrier to do.

Comment Re:I think this is fair. (Score 1) 191

The packet header is quite easy to see, and your analogy is like saying the Post office can't be a common carrier because they read the envelope to get the address, so the are already inspecting the mail.

Nonsense. All the information an ISP needs are in the link and internet layers. Any deeper information is none of their business. The source and destination IPs are in the internet layer, and are similar to the destination and return addresses on the snail-mail envelope.

Doing any deeper packet inspection is akin to steaming open the envelope to see whether the letter is actually intended for the addressee or her kids (transport layer, application layer, etc.), or the content of the actual message. That's absolutely none of the ISP's business as a common carrier.

There is a huge difference between reading an IP or TCP/UP header and trying to piece together a stream of packets in order to determine the content.

No. There is a huge difference between reading an IP header, and reading a TCP header. As a common carrier, an ISP has no legitimate reason to do the latter. No more than the post office has any business opening the envelope to see whether the message starts with "Dear John," or ends with "Love always".

Comment Re:I think this is fair. (Score 1) 191

I haven't looked at the actual case, but based on the summary, the judge must have issued a ruling overriding a request for dismissal of one or more counts that were predicated on the protections of the DMCA, and to do this, the judge would have to state his reasoning why.

How does that make GP wrong? If this judge does make a bad call on the dismissal, then indeed Cox could use that as grounds for appeal. Sure, that does mean the case must be tried first.

I suppose you may have meant GP was wrong about recusal or "instant appeal". It doesn't work that way. But the decision will certainly be an influential one in the following procedures.

Comment Re:The judge issued a verdict ahead of trial? (Score 2) 191

There are three parties in the US now:
* The Left, not materially represented in Congress, but Bernie Sanders is an example of a Left politician.
* The Right, not materially represented in Congress, but Ben Carson is an example of a Right politician.
* The Donor Party, which includes the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in government (at least at the federal level), and which gets great and responsive representation.

Our government is very attentive and responsive to the best interest of the constituents who sent them to office. The problem is those constituents are the big money donors, not the people who are voting Democrat or Republican.

It's structurally possible to fix this though primary elections, and by "primary-ing out" incumbents. But we, the voters, need to start caring more about evicting the Donor Party guys than about whether Left or Right win. The Donor Party games us every year by calling the non-Donor Party guys "extremists" for daring to represent what the people actually want. Can we stop caring about how the mainstream media describes candidates? I'm doubtful, but it's possible.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 191

It was established legal tradition in Britain for some time before the US war for independence that people were allowed to own guns because, even though hunting was illegal, guns weren't only for hunting, they could be used to defend one's home. It was common in the colonies (where everyone had guns, and hunting was legal) that every man was required to bring his gun to church on Sunday, in case a group of men with guns was required for any purpose. These guns were expected to be serviceable military weapons - a tradition going back to the late medieval period, where every man was required to own a weapon of war in case that was needed (and swords were very cheaply available after the plague, so real military weapons, not farm implements, were expected).

There are still several modern nations in which every man of age is required to own a modern military rifle (issued by the government). This idea that somehow the "right to keep and bear arms" excludes modern military small arms is a very modern contrivance, and not at all the intent of the Second Amendment. Heck, not just small arms - even 100 years ago cannon were typically bought for the town by the wealthy, and taken off to war when needed.

It's a very simple idea with centuries of legal tradition behind it: a free man has the right to own a gun, and not just for hunting, but actual military small arms. Totalitarian states disarm their subjects to prevent uprisings. Free societies have an armed populace to keep the government nervous about uprisings. It really is that fundamental.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 191

No, the deal is, if you fly a drone across a state line, it becomes subject to federal regulation. And not before.

Almost but not quite. "Navigable airspace" means commonly-traveled interstate air routes, and associated airspace, like around airports.

And that's reasonable.

But the vast majority of airspace, outside of those commonly traveled routes and altitudes, is completely outside FAA's jurisdiction. That's a basic principle of how our Constitution models Federal authority.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 191

Yes, I do. Do you? Specifically, Class G airspace - the "uncontrolled" airspace up to 1200 feet, except in the vicinity of an airport, where the ceiling is much lower? Because that's part of the national airspace system, and the rules identifying and controlling it are the responsibility of the FAA. The FAA reauthorization of 2012 grants them the charter of "integrating uav flight" into the national airspace, which includes Class G - therefore, they are well within their legal rights to regulate that space.

That isn't an answer. You're defining something in terms of that something... a completely circular argument which has no meaning. I asked you a question which you haven't answered.

If you need it made more clear, then look this up: what was the Congressional authority under which the 2012 reauthorization was made? Here's a big hint: it's called a "REauthorization"... not a grant of new authority.

Your description of areas around airports are irrelevant, because I mentioned them myself, earlier.

the CONGRESS has constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce

This is just asinine. Of course it's Congress' authority under which the law was made. FAA authority can only be assigned via Congressional authority. Again, this is not an argument. It's something I already mentioned myself.

So, you're saying that Class G airspace only exists as a navigable airspace in one state?

Of course not. Where did I state that? What I stated was that it's part of a system of INTERSTATE routes. Get a goddamned clue.

Once again - shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!" doesn't constitute (ha!) an argument. Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce. Air travel is part of interstate commerce, and thus the use of the airspace used by air travel is regulated by the FAA, by order of Congress. The FAA regulates ALL airspace, not just the airspace above an airport, or routes between airports. Why? Because the stuff going on at 500 feet can easily affect the stuff going on at other altitudes, without a well-defined set of regulations in place to govern what responsible people will do in that space.

I didn't "shout" anything... you seem to be the one doing the shouting here. And an awful lot of hand-waving.

No, FAA does not regulate "all" airspace. This goes right back to my original statement. FAA regulates -- via its Congressionally-granted authority to regulate COMMERCIAL INTERSTATE AIR TRAVEL (that pesky "interstate commerce" clause you don't seem to understand) -- is in charge of "navigable airways". Which are defined as commonly-traveled INTERSTATE airways, and other airspace that is part of that system... like areas around airports.

That is a very far cry from "all" airspace. In fact, it's a system of particular routes and particular altititudes, and other areas (such as airports), which you can find clearly printed on aviation charts of the United States.

The FAA does NOT have jurisdiction over OTHER airspace... which in fact is the majority of the airspace.

Therefore it does not have jurisdiction over drones that do not cross into that airspace. For example, the FAA has absolutely NO legal authority over the air 250 feet above my property. That's MY airspace, by international law.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 2) 191

You have to get licensed to own a gun, drive a car, and you have to register to vote.

You do not have to get licensed to own a gun, at least in states that show the slightest respect for the US Constitution. You do not have to get licensed to drive a car, unless you want to drive it in public places (and even then, driving farm equipment on farm-to-market roads doesn't require a license, as that was seen as an undue burden). You don't, in practice, have to register to vote, unless you live somewhere that requires an ID to vote - and most states see an ID as an undue burden.

You don't need a pilots license to fly a plane (well, most planes), if you stay at low altitude and away form airports. You shouldn't need to register to own a drone, or to fly one as long as you stay at low altitude and away from airports.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 191

In fact, the law in question that gives the FAA the authority to regulate drones is the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012," specifically, Title III, Subtitle B, "Unmanned Aircraft Systems," in which Congress specifically directs the FAA as follows:

Do you know what "the national airspace system" referred to there is?

Do you know what the Commerce clause in the Constitution is (which is the ONLY Constitutional authority FAA has)?

Are you asserting that Congress doesn't have any authority to make this law,

No, I'm saying Congress' authority to make this law is limited to "navigable airspace", which is the concept which governs interstate air transportation. The "interstate" part is what gives the FAA its authority.

rather than spouting off generalized inanities that demonstrate your lack of knowledge about aviation. If not, then perhaps you can take your claims that the FAA has "no lawful authority" over you, and shove them up your ass.

It's not a generalization, it's Constitutional law. Read about it some time.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 0, Flamebait) 191

When idiots crash their drones into things then authorities will be able to hold the pilot responsible.

Will they?

Show me where in the Constitution, or in the Air Commerce Act, the FAA was given authority over all airspace in the U.S.

They don't have such authority. Any more than the EPA has legal authority over the birdbath in your backyard.

Unless you're flying your drone in "navigable airspace" (which is interstate airways and around the airports that serve them), FAA has no lawful authority over you.

Comment Re:The real worry should be Kessler Syndrome (Score 1) 98

There's a serious risk that in low-Earth orbit if one has enough debris it could cause a cascade of destruction where debris hits satellites breaking them up into more debris which hits more satellites and so on. Such a cascade is called Kessler Syndrome . If this happens it could render many orbits unusable for years.

It would be a pain, but there is some drag in LEO and small debris won't last forever. Also, you almost never get a stable orbit from a random trajectory. If you actually start blowing shit up in space, most of the shrapnel is going to be in an obit that intersects the Earth, or dense atmosphere (or even possibly escapes, if you're blowing shit up real good).

deliberately destroying satellites should maybe be considered a war crime

The winners decide what's a war crime, and that mostly consists of "being needlessly dickish to the winner". It's rather fundamental that the group with a monopoly on force decides what constitutes a crime. Treaties and tradition about what's allowed in war are mostly about winners swearing off stuff that didn't work well anyhow. (BTW, the last enemy the US fought that agreed to the Geneva Convention was the Nazis - none of our enemies for the past 70 years gave a shit about Western ideals and "war crimes".)

"Love your country but never trust its government." -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania