{"id":2606,"date":"2024-12-12T18:01:58","date_gmt":"2024-12-13T01:01:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=2606"},"modified":"2024-12-12T18:01:58","modified_gmt":"2024-12-13T01:01:58","slug":"from-zero-tolerance-to-zero-concern-the-changing-face-of-drone-regulation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2024\/12\/12\/from-zero-tolerance-to-zero-concern-the-changing-face-of-drone-regulation\/","title":{"rendered":"From Zero Tolerance to Zero Concern: The Changing Face of Drone Regulation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\r\n
\r\n <\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo by Grok.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/p>\n

\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\n

PJ Media: What’s Really Going on With All the Drones Buzzing New Jersey?<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Did John Kirby nearly burst a blood vessel at a White House briefing Thursday because a senator called for shooting down one of those mysterious drones buzzing New Jersey to find out whose they are?<\/p>\n

After Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called for shooting down at least one of the drones that have been buzzing over New Jersey for hours each night for weeks, Kirby held a presser and assured the country that there is still nothing to worry about. Really, they’re nothing, Kirby assured us, there was nothing illegal going on whatsoever. There’s absolutely no danger, and no bad actors are flying the drones. And there are actually people in some of them, so please don’t shoot them down, thankyewverymuch.<\/p>\n

What he actually said was that there was “no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or a public safety threat or have a foreign nexus.”<\/p>\n

He further explained that “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI are investigating these sightings, and they’re working closely with state and local law enforcement to provide resources using numerous detection methods to better understand their origin.”<\/p>\n

Kirby talked about some of the ways they’ve been trying to assess the drones saying they’ve been using “very sophisticated electronic detection technologies provided by federal authorities” but that they haven’t even been able to “corroborate any of the reported visual sightings.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let’s compare the stringent early government crackdowns on drone operators to the seemingly lax response by John Kirby regarding recent drone activities over New Jersey:<\/p>\n

1. Historical Context of Drone Regulation:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Early Government Response to Drones:<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>In the initial stages of drone use, particularly from 2013 onwards, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was notably strict. Drones were seen as a potential threat to air safety and privacy. Operators faced severe penalties for unauthorized flights over people or in restricted areas. For instance, in 2014, a drone operator was fined $10,000 for flying over a crowd in Virginia during a concert, highlighting the zero-tolerance policy for violations of airspace rules at the time.
\nPenalties:<\/strong><\/em><\/span> The FAA could and did impose heavy fines, revoke operating privileges, and in some cases, criminal charges were pursued for reckless or negligent operation of drones. This was part of a broader effort to ensure safety and privacy, which included public education campaigns about the dangers of flying drones near people or sensitive locations.<\/p>\n

2. John Kirby’s Recent Response:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Current Scenario:<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>Recent reports, including the PJ Media article linked, discuss John Kirby’s relatively subdued response to the drone sightings over New Jersey. According to Kirby, there’s no evidence these drones pose a national security threat, and many sightings might be of manned aircraft. This stance contrasts sharply with the immediate and decisive action taken against drone operators in the past.
\nKirby’s Statements:<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>Kirby’s comments suggest a passive approach, stating that while investigations are ongoing by the FBI and DHS, there’s no immediate threat or confirmed malicious intent. This response lacks the urgency and regulatory enforcement seen historically when drones were first becoming prevalent.<\/p>\n

3. Comparison Points:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Severity of Response:<\/strong><\/em><\/span> Where once the government was quick to enforce regulations with significant penalties, Kirby’s approach seems to downplay the potential risks, focusing more on not wanting to “telegraph any punches” rather than immediate action or acknowledgment of the potential dangers of unidentified drones flying over populated areas.
\nPublic Safety and Security:<\/strong><\/em><\/span> Early drone regulations were stringent due to concerns over safety and security. Drones flying over crowds or critical infrastructure were treated with immediate action. However, Kirby’s response does not convey the same level of concern for public safety or national security, even when these drones are reported to be car-sized and flying in formation.
\nRegulatory Enforcement:<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>In the past, the FAA actively pursued legal actions against violators. Now, with Kirby’s statements, there’s an apparent hesitation or delay in regulatory enforcement or even in confirming the nature of these drones, which might indicate a shift in policy or a lack of clarity on how to handle such modern threats.<\/p>\n

4. Logical Implications:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Shift in Policy or Perception:<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>This comparison suggests either a significant shift in how drone threats are perceived or a change in policy where the immediate enforcement of regulations has given way to a more observational and less proactive stance. This could be due to advances in drone technology, the normalization of drone use, or perhaps an underestimation of the threat posed by unidentified drones.
\nPublic Perception and Trust:<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>The early aggressive crackdowns were partly about setting a precedent for safe drone operations. Kirby’s current response might erode public trust, as it appears to lack the same commitment to safety and security seen in earlier years.
\nPotential Risks:<\/strong><\/em><\/span> If these drones are indeed as described, flying in formation and at night over populated areas, the lack of decisive action could lead to potential risks, whether from malicious intent or simple mechanical failure, risks that were evidently more guarded against in the past.<\/p>\n

The contrast between the stringent early responses to drone misuse and John Kirby’s more laid-back approach to the New Jersey drone sightings highlights a significant evolution in drone policy and enforcement. While technology has evolved, the essence of the threat\u2014safety, privacy, and security\u2014remains, suggesting that the current, seemingly lax response might warrant reevaluation if the situation escalates or if the true nature of these drones becomes clearer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PJ Media: What’s Really Going on With All the Drones Buzzing New Jersey? Did John Kirby nearly burst a blood vessel at a White House briefing Thursday because a senator called for shooting down one of those mysterious drones buzzing New Jersey to find out whose they are? After Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called for…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[160,127],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drone-warfare","category-political-failure"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2606","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2606"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2606\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}