[shadowgovt]

I've always considered the trade-off to be more straightforward: If you're going to fly a multi-ton vehicle over my head without me having the right to tell you to get the hell out of the property I own ("from hell to sky" is the traditional parcel of land owned in the English common law system), then at the very least I should have the right to know who you are.

The government took our property rights to build airspace as a common highway, and we ought to get something out of further taking.

[say_it_as_it_is]

That's an interesting argument, but why do you not have the right to know who is driving next to you on a road yet claim to have the right to know who is flying above?

[shadowgovt]

I don't have a traditional property right to the road next to my owned land parcel.

I do have a traditional property right to the airspace above my owned land parcel.

That property right was abridged by the formation of the national airspace system, but there were agreements put into place regarding what safeguards people had against other people abusing that new highway. This is an abridgment of those existing agreements.

(... I think the case can be made that it's a reasonable abridgment, but to a first approximation it looks an awful lot like 'forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges' when only the elite can afford private jets).