I am writing to you due to my concern over the possible use of drones by state and federal agencies, and the lack of transparency on how they will be used. Though I can understand the need to use these things for search and rescue and what not, I believe the privacy activists as well as a lot of the citizens of Seattle are completely justified in their fierce opposition to the use of drones.
After reading this particular story, brought up some considerable concern for me. For one, the fact that Boeing's disdain for the current bill actually caused it to die before it got to the house floor for a vote raises a lot of concerns on it's own. It's disturbing to think that a single company can have that much influence over what bills go through the house and the senate. To take a quote out of the Seattle Times article that was sourced...
"Boeing spokeswoman Sue Bradley said the company opposed the bill because it was not "sufficiently thorough and thoughtful."
"We believe that as the technology matures, best practices and new understanding will emerge, and that it would be counterproductive to rush into regulating a burgeoning industry," Bradley wrote in a statement."
It must be pointed out that no one whom was quoted in that entire article pointed out what exactly in the bill would have been "counterproductive in this burgeoning industry".
Having read house bill 1771, It's difficult to see exactly what would have hindered the production of these drones from what was written in the bill itself.
The questions that I have for you are, what exactly were the "compelling arguments" that were made by the Boeing lobbyists that put House Bill 1771 into limbo? What changes in the bill are to be made to actually get it on to the senate and house floors for a vote? Why is the State and Federal Government acting so evasive on setting into law what exactly these drones can and can not be used for?
Thank you for your time, I hope hear a response from you in regards to this important issue.
I will update if I get any responses.