January 29,
2015 GAIL COLLINS
The case of
the intoxicated government worker who flew a drone onto the White House lawn
launched a million jokes. Although none was actually better than the
straight-faced headline in The New York Times: ''White House Drone Crash
Described as a U.S. Worker's Drunken Lark.''
''My first
question is whether the guy's going to get a D.U.I. for droning under the
influence,''
said Ben Trapnell, an aviation professor at the University of North Dakota. I
had a great phone conversation with Trapnell about drones, a.k.a. unmanned
aerial vehicles. It led me to conclude that, like so many other things in
American society, this is a matter about which people differ depending on
whether they live in a crowded place or an empty place.
Empty, like
North Dakota, and you think of a flying camera doing crop inspections. Maybe an
Amazon drone arriving at your house on the prairie with the espresso maker you
just ordered.
Crowded, and
you imagine a mini-helicopter crashing through your apartment window. Or
hitting a light pole and falling down on a baby in a stroller. Or running into
a plane, which has nearly happened on several occasions.
Even the
much-heralded promise of drone-delivered pizza sounds awful if you envision
hundreds of pies smashing into one another over Brooklyn every Friday night.
But about the drunk
droner. This saga starred an off-duty employee of the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency who had been drinking at an apartment not far
from the White House when he decided, in the middle of the night, to try out a
friend's drone. He then quickly lost control of the little fellow, which
crash-landed in what is at least theoretically the most heavily protected lawn
in the United States.
The public
conversation instantly turned to terrorism and whether a maniac could use a
recreational drone to drop a bomb, or start a chemical attack. This is a
terrible worry. But at least we have multitudes of dedicated, vigilant public
servants, virtually all of them totally sober, working night and day to make
sure this kind of thing doesn't happen.
However, we're
not giving enough attention to the threat of normal American idiots. The kind
of people who think it's fun to sit in the backyard and point laser lights at
the cockpits of incoming planes, or participate in a YouTube challenge that
involves trying to snort a condom up one's nose. The folks for whose benefit
countless utility companies have written tips that include ''don't look for a
gas leak with a candle or lighted match.''
Drones are
supereasy to buy in stores or online. Regulating their behavior is the
responsibility of the Federal Aviation Administration, which is taking its
sweet time. ''In 2011, Congress asked the F.A.A. to come up with rules. Finally
this fall they came out with rules,'' said Senator Charles Schumer of New York,
who's been complaining about the delays.
But wait,
there's more! ''We don't even know what they say,'' Schumer continued. The
F.A.A. isn't sharing until more of the bureaucracy gets a crack at its
handiwork: ''They won't make them public until the Office of Management and Budget
reviews them. O.M.B. then sends them to other federal agencies.'' While we're
waiting around, confusion abounds. Commercial drone uses are theoretically
prohibited, but there's a widespread feeling that in the absence of rules,
anything goes.
Take Representative
Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, whose wedding photographer had a drone taking
pictures during the happy occasion. When critics accused him of violating
F.A.A. rules, Maloney said he ''wasn't up-to-date on the lack of regulations
around the emerging technology.'' The same thing was true, the congressman
argued, of ''most people who are about to get married.'' Excellent point!
Although most people who are about to get married are not serving on the House
transportation subcommittee on aviation.
One of the
very few drone regulations that does exist prohibits flying near airports. But
clearly some do it anyway. And if you catch one, there's no ID number to tell
you who owns it. ''The ones being reported in near collisions are (flown by)
hobbyists, and they can go up to 55 pounds,'' said a spokesman for the Air Line
Pilots Association, which is deeply unenthusiastic about the whole drone idea.
''These aren't like geese. The ones that can be purchased on the internet can
go as high as 7-8,000 feet.''
And then
you've got privacy issues. ''They better beware, because I've got a shotgun,''
said Senator Rand Paul, when asked about drones after the White House incident.
This was during an interview, in which CNN was trying to demonstrate that it is
possible to communicate with a prominent politician via Snapchat. (It is
possible, but probably not a good idea.)
Professor
Trapnell in North Dakota wasn't impressed by the privacy argument. ''I'd be
more worried about somebody sticking a cellphone on a pole and holding it over
the fence,'' he argued.
Like I said,
it's crowded versus empty.
