Galveston crash injury lawyers mention that you might not know that President Obama has ordered the FAA, beginning in less than 90 days, to approve more Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs, or “drones” as they’re more commonly regarded). These UAVs are intended for law enforcement and emergency use. But the legislation the President signed does not, in fact, limit the uses to which the drones might be put.
Which leaves the possibility that your inquisitive neighbor, questionable “ex,” background check firm, marketing research entity, hacker, or any other curious individual or entity could utilize domestic drones to track your behavior and location, and possibly use the drone in ways hazardous to your life and health. Our Galveston crash injury lawyers point out that, depending upon their design, the UAVs can carry weapons, and can use infrared, radar, and other sensors to peer through your walls and ceilings.’
Under the President’s order, the FAA has until September 30, 2015 to create drones less than 4.4 pounds in weight that can fly lower than 400 feet. To date, the FAA has restricted the use of domestic drones because of concerns that they might pose hazards to other aircraft and to people on the ground. But the President has effectively trumped the FAA and its concerns with little regard for your personal safety or privacy.
The FAA’s concerns seem well founded to our Galveston crash injury lawyers. Tests of the drones in Texas showed that the UAVs leave much to be desired. The tests in Texas showed the drones to be plagued with problems:
Now don’t get us wrong. Generally speaking, we’re all for an increased police presence and increased public safety just about everywhere. But we prefer human police who can make human judgment calls. People who know when to shoot as well as when not to shoot. Law enforcement should have a face, a conscience, and a heart, as well as a steady trigger finger.
Our Galveston crash injury lawyers are not convinced that an automated drone, a spy in the sky, can serve that function. Suppose your neighbor next door has a highly productive meth lab. Suppose authorities decide to target the lab through an automated drone. Suppose the drone fires and misses. Do you want to be “collateral damage?” Oops, just another technical glitch?
We understand the government’s desire to automate. Many industries have chosen to automate where it was feasible. Machines don’t get paychecks or benefits. They don’t call in sick. (They just have sudden catastrophic systems failure.)
We remain unconvinced that you can automate the police function. Robocop isn’t something we want to contemplate roving our neighborhoods and malls (or flying over them either). Automating the first response function seems to indicate a low disregard for the public safety.
Tried and true methods still seem the preferable means to address long-standing human problems. For example, if you’ve suffered injury in a local road accident, take a look at our Galveston crash injury lawyers’ book offering tried and true methods to ensure your successful accident injury claim. It’s available on our website for free to our readers. Just click and download. And don’t worry about what that drone overhead may think of your reading habits.