“This is NOT something users want,” another critic added. “I have a good relationship with my local airports and have worked with every local tower or control center. I get clearance to fly and they have been great, but this ‘update’ takes away my control.
”Ryan Calo, a University of Washingtonlaw professor who studies robots and the law, traces the resistance to two sources. “One is a complaint about restricting innovation. The second one says you should own your own stuff, and it’s a liberty issue: corporate verses individual control and autonomy,” Calo says. “When I purchase something I own it, and when someone else controls what I own, it will be serving someone else’s interest, not mine.”
Intersections of technology and government regulation are interesting.
When a piece of technology is so small and cheap, it’s easy to apply personal ideas of how you should be able to interact with it. At some level it make sense to compare geo-fence restrictions on drones to DRM on e-books. But really, it’s not the same concept at all.
When something is large and expensive, such as a private plane, then it’s probably easier to agree with (and understand) restrictions on where you can use it. The same thing applies to cars—just because I own a vehicle doesn’t mean I can drive it down a one way street or onto private property without consequence.