-
Politics are not permitted. There's plenty of places to discuss that elsewhere, and a hot pepper forum is not the place. Thank you for respecting the community!
Kentucky man shoots down drone
- Thread starter moruga welder
- Start date
Heckle said:
It seems like it would take a pretty short time to aim a beam antenna and key up a transmitter just long enough for the drone to fall into range for aj's shotgun. Less time than it would take them to get an accurate enough fix on the antenna's location at least.
But "they" probably have some sort of contingency plan for that. Like an autopilot override deal. Oh well. I'll keep thinking...
Hybrid Mode 01 said:
The whole "we can't fly our helicopter because of your quad" is BS, IMO ...
The rotor wash of a heli would blow a quad out of the sky before it was any less than like 35 ft between them ...
It's probably the headlines needed to setup installing the laws to officiate the backdooring process ...
I'm ok w/ the backdooring ... and figured it was already there when I bought mine.
grantmichaels said:
Yeah. That whole spiel stunk of politics to me as soon as I heard it.
Wanna know how you can tell my type of red neck? Ya find the ones who dont give a shit about things like that dumb ass flag. Dear god, it was what was on Daisy Dukes bottom that mattered, not what was on top of the General Lee.moruga welder said:
The son thing was just so I could work in the Devil went down to Georgia thing. It is stuck in my head, only I want to rewrite it for peppers. Devil, who looks like a normal person, goes down to Kentucky for a pepper to steal, rename, and sell online with someone elses photos. Some sort of contest, devil turns red and grows horns from eating some mythical pepper. He looses, guy keeps his soul and gets the devils peppers or something. I'll get drunk and figure out the words some time.
On being 3 years older, congratulations on making it this far. I am doing the 50 on the 21st and am honestly surprised. Seems like younger folk are uh... different. So damn strong willed about shit that doesnt much matter. Kind of fun to watch.
BS is always interesting on the sec topics:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/08/shooting_down_d.html
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/08/shooting_down_d.html
yeah, i read about that one ...
def going to be some interesting times, that's for sure ...
i def don't have the answers ...
def going to be some interesting times, that's for sure ...
i def don't have the answers ...
This seems to be covered by the FAA already..
Section 91.119( c ) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no
person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
( c ) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except
over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
2 people should have been arrested in KY
one for violating city ordinance
and one for FAA violation
My feeling is that we should play this one a little loose and maybe we can be the Jetson's in ~15 years, or the govt can interfere again with new laws and no one can have an electric bicycle, because now its a motor vehicle and you need a motocycle license. Not to mention all the safety features the DoT requires.
Section 91.119( c ) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no
person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
( c ) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except
over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
2 people should have been arrested in KY
one for violating city ordinance
and one for FAA violation
grantmichaels said:
My feeling is that we should play this one a little loose and maybe we can be the Jetson's in ~15 years, or the govt can interfere again with new laws and no one can have an electric bicycle, because now its a motor vehicle and you need a motocycle license. Not to mention all the safety features the DoT requires.
grantmichaels said:
I would like to dispute this. Using the "slipper slope fallacy" to relate this to gun ownership/control? The two items are mutually exclusive. One requires simple legislation, the other would require amending the constitution (which is done by a minimum of 3/4 of the state and has nothing to do with population; I.e. not going to happen anytime soon).
The freedom to fly a drone doesn't exist. it is a physical thing that you are free to enjoy on your own property. However, currently under most states property laws you own between 500ft-1000ft above the roof of your home. There are some instances where you can only own up to 83feet of private airspaces but this is simply in areas where otherwise planes would "buzz" your house without a limit (According to 1926 supreme court case). After this it generally becomes regulated by various government agencies. Plain and simple they trespassed on his property using a RC device. If the FFA/other agencies were to "restrict" your access to the airspace above your home...they would have to pay for it. It would be paid just like cases of imminent domain; Since this property was previously regulated as "private".
Current precedent for this is if you video record anyone in a private setting without their permission, on their own property, they can have a court order for you to turn over any and all film/photos with their image in it. If you post it for public access you can be fined/sued for monetary damages. Not to mention the case of child pornography if she happened to nip-slip on camera. Flying personal drones over private land causes more trouble than it is worth.
I don't see why you need to fly a drone over private land. Take that thing to a park, oceanfront, woods, literally anywhere else besides your neighbors homes.
In my opinion the law should be clear and defined. In this case I don't think this should be in favor of the Drone Owner. I think if you use RC tech to trespass on someone's property, at the time you know you are on their property; You should forfeit your rights to said RC device, and ownership should then belong to the property owner. Otherwise with future more advance tech. things will get very dicey (not a slippery slope fallacy, logical transition with rational argument).
Vicious Vex said:
A drone is no less a physical thing than a gun
and the 9th amendment
Federal?
Currently all the peeping anyone would want to do can be done within the law by a drone anything at 501'. Camera technology is well ahead of remote control vehicles.
What about google satellites? You think the best they can do is whats on Google Earth?
I don't care enough to disagree w/ most of all that, so I'm not ignoring it, I just haven't given it much thought (yet) ...
I don't fly mine over people's houses, but I do pop it up in my yard and use the street for testing it's flight-worthiness ...
Because I see it as a flying sling-blade, I'm careful to ensure it's flying as expected at home before I run over to the yard at the school ...
I flew it there on nice days last Fall, and I very may do that again in a month or two ...
I have no interest in violating anyone's airspace, really ... I just don't find people all that interesting, I guess? ...
I'd love to go fly the thing around some sculptures on the waterfront, downtown ... because I have experience doing 3D photography/photogrammetry using SfM ... but I don't because of the safety risk.
It's easy to lose one of these ... they have bugs ... the quad's do unpredictable shit and fly-away and crash and head to set-points you didn't program etc at this point in the game ...
So ... it is what it is ... a little taste of the Wild West, a few hundred feet above our heads, destined to be regulated ...
I mean, technically, jet-packs and alt-vertical-take-off propulsion packs otherwise already exist ... and practically, they are inexpensive enough to be purchased by middle-class folks ...
I think the self-driving car space is the short-hop we'll see first ... those things are going to get pwned so hard, it'll be interesting to see what fiscal decisions car companies make following the inevitable social pressure that's going to come w/ moving towards 'self-driving' ...
Are they going to steer them in a giant virtualization created from our collective Google glasses data paired up w/ our smartphone sensor data? ...
I watched a lady talk on her phone the other day while her Jag' parallel parked ...
It threw me off the way she was looking around, until I realized she wasn't driving, LOL ....
Lots of weirdness coming.
I don't fly mine over people's houses, but I do pop it up in my yard and use the street for testing it's flight-worthiness ...
Because I see it as a flying sling-blade, I'm careful to ensure it's flying as expected at home before I run over to the yard at the school ...
I flew it there on nice days last Fall, and I very may do that again in a month or two ...
I have no interest in violating anyone's airspace, really ... I just don't find people all that interesting, I guess? ...
I'd love to go fly the thing around some sculptures on the waterfront, downtown ... because I have experience doing 3D photography/photogrammetry using SfM ... but I don't because of the safety risk.
It's easy to lose one of these ... they have bugs ... the quad's do unpredictable shit and fly-away and crash and head to set-points you didn't program etc at this point in the game ...
So ... it is what it is ... a little taste of the Wild West, a few hundred feet above our heads, destined to be regulated ...
I mean, technically, jet-packs and alt-vertical-take-off propulsion packs otherwise already exist ... and practically, they are inexpensive enough to be purchased by middle-class folks ...
I think the self-driving car space is the short-hop we'll see first ... those things are going to get pwned so hard, it'll be interesting to see what fiscal decisions car companies make following the inevitable social pressure that's going to come w/ moving towards 'self-driving' ...
Are they going to steer them in a giant virtualization created from our collective Google glasses data paired up w/ our smartphone sensor data? ...
I watched a lady talk on her phone the other day while her Jag' parallel parked ...
It threw me off the way she was looking around, until I realized she wasn't driving, LOL ....
Lots of weirdness coming.
The right to own and operate is where the similarities end. To use your logic would be: Since I have the right to fly a drone over your property, I have a right to fire my weapon on your propety.Heckle said:
See how the similarities stop really quickly?
501 feet would be federal airspace regulated by the FFA, and would be a federal crime to occupy that airspace without a flight plan approved. Not to mention that just because you commit a crime in "government regulated territory" doesn't negate the fact that a crime was commited. Just means the government has first dibs on jurisdiction and prosecution.
Using the 9th amendment as a work around for "right to own a drone" I can see, but your civil liberties end when they begin to infringe upon others. So that wouldn't apply to flying the drone over private property to commit the crime of trespassing.
Yes, the current precedent for filmimg of someone from thier property without thier consent is federal. It's covered under privacy law, federally recognized.
I agree with your use, and prediction of the future... The law needs to be able to catch up faster. Someone always abuses the tech when it first comes out and operates in a legal and moral grey area.grantmichaels said:
lol.
grantmichaels said:
i saw that
Vicious Vex said:
Your analogy is apples and oranges. If I was claiming the right to fly over your property, which I'm not and havent, then the gun equivalent would be firing over someone else's property. Which I'd guess is mostly illegal. All I'm saying is that I wouldnt want to see a rush to regulation over fear. It's always a lot harder to undo than do.
Maybe something simple like adding a clause to trespass laws that would make the operator responsible for flying into private property. I think that would cover most situations.
re: Someone always abuses the tech when it first comes out and operates in a legal and moral grey area.
There are sharks in the ocean. Australia is chock full of poisonous and venomous creatures. You could drown in a pool.
re: flying the drone over private property to commit the crime of trespassing
I dont think it is yet.
Pretty sure youre wrong about whatever federal privacy laws youre talkingabout. You can photo the outside of a property all you want. Its only the inside that matters. That law already exists. No need to add more.
Change the 500ft to 50' and my property, which is next door.
I can film your yard all day long. You cant do anything. That law isnt going to change for drones.
Point being that you missed is that its all much ado about nothing.
Its already illegal to shoot photos/video through windows. Its not to photograph a yard or anything in it and probably never will be. Not Federally.
You can photograph/Film physical property, from a public access but you cannot take "offensive measures" such as a telescopic lense, or reaching over a fence, recording from a private roof over a privacy fence...or flying a drone. Also, it has been legally declared that property that is directly under your control, as is RC devices, it becomes an extension of self. Therefore by using a drone you are trespassing, which negates the bit that allows you to record private property.
". Therefore, you may photograph, film and record what you can easily see or hear in public places, even if the recorded people have not specifically consented to such, provided you do not harass, trespass or otherwise intrude. This includes shooting footage of a private property from a public sidewalk, as long as you do not engage in overzealous surveillance, such as the offensive use, for example, of a telephoto lens to record intimate activities inside the bedroom or bathroom of a private residence."
If using a ladder on a sidewalk to get a better view of someone's backyard is considered an offensive measure, why is purposely flying a drone onto someone else's property not considered one?
No I am not.
I can't determine what you meant because I can change multiple words to make this sentence have different meanings. Correct things before I can respond.
Paparazzi have been given trespassing charges for sticking Cameras over fences. What is the difference between that & purposely flying a drone over someone's property? - The crime of trespassing is detailed as "Trespassing is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person's property without permission. Such action is held to infringe upon a property owner's legal right to enjoy the benefits of ownership." The law states nothing of whether or not you have to be physically on the land to commit the crime.
Therefore by being on anyone's property (Land or Air) you are violating their expected benefit of privacy in their back yard (not easily accessible or visible from public land). By crossing someone's property line, if you are knowledgeable, you are committing a crime and any footage you have has been gathered illegally.
Stop using Strawman arguments. You still have not provided a rebuttal for my previous statement:
^No, but have you ever thought of why their photos are so blurry? (it is for a reason) You can also request that Google blur your entire property from their street view map system so it doesn't become public.
Stop being coy and state your point so it cannot be left to inference:
I am not just making things up to argue with you. These are the legal precedents. This is not my opinion.
Vicious Vex said:
Oh well then just showing me the federal statutes and court rulings will suffice.
According to you isnt it already clearly defined?
Perhaps this is the physical extension you are trying to claim because it actually was.
Then you even say it. Perhaps the problem is the legal definition of entering.
You keep mixing up your opinion and fact.
Well you ignored the part where I said I could photo your backyard all day long FROM THE YARD NEXT DOOR LEGALLY. It doesnt have to be from a public place.
Oh now youre repeating what I said already and acting like youre schooling me. What you dont get is that above 500' is public property and that filing a flight plan isnt that hard. Or the yard next door. Or the hill over there.
Youre flailing all over.
Quit saying Im wrong and then proving me right.
I can't determine what you meant because I can change multiple words to make this sentence have different meanings. Correct things before I can respond.
Oh my bad. You did respond a little.
Your neighbor can hover 50' up into his own airspace and take all the pictures of your backyard he wants.
Also with Google youre confusing the idea of what they can do with what they publish.
By your own admission they are breaking the law, theyre just not showing everyone.
Derp.
Vicious Vex said:
You think I made up sharks, Australia and pool drownings?
lol
I was saying there is always something that "could" happen re: "Someone always abuses the tech when it first comes out and operates in a legal and moral grey area". If you werent so defensive about a. your privacy and b. the bunk you keep trying to spew like fact then perhaps you would have understood a simple analogy instead of being all reactionary.
Where does the trespassing law explicitly state "drones" - that is the level of detail I am talking about so vague law can't be used against other things. ( I would think you of all people would support this, giving policing states less power while protecting the existing rights of citizens) - I think we can agree is we don't want any more laws that allow policing loopholes.
The legal definition of entering: "To form a constituent part; to become a part or partaker; to penetrate; share or mix with, as tin enters into the composition of pewter. To go or come into a place or condition; to make or effect an entrance; to cause to go into or be received into."
No.
Burden of Proof is on the accuser. In order to refute something you must prove it false. I have already researched this, but if you feel so inclined to make an effort...feel free.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/legal-limits-recording-conduct-and-conver - This is a website that offers legal information to reporters & photographers. This website is in support of your ideals. All I did was use their text in this. I didn't type that.
If you went to 500 feet, with a flight plan...then I guess legally you would be fine. Filing a flight plan is difficult - It requires height, duration, distance, and the locations at which you will break the "ceiling" & where you will re-enter. - See the FFA's webpage http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/air_traffic_services/flight_plan_filing/#fpf
No. The only time you can film private property is if it is visible from PUBLIC land (not easements). You cannot use your private property to record someone in their backyard. It impedes their rights to "enjoy their property" as intended. (Privacy in the back-half of property is a perceived right; See the right of exclusion & the right of enjoyment)
As of currently they are, and it would take someone willing to sue them to get them to change their practices. The "street view" can be auto-programmed to blur residences, faces, and license plates before the photo is rendered and stored (per their website). Currently they refuse to alter Satellite images.
No. This is from multiple sources across different avenues of law, Manslaughter, negligence, etc. All have facets of people either being in control, or failing to control their property and being charged with the crimes their items commit. When you are operating something, you are controlling it, therefore it becomes a tool for you to commit your crime. Once again - reverting back to my original opinion. The law needs to be better defined to account for these type of issues.
That is requiring an inference. You also took a portion of my sentence, without context and attacked it. In context it speaks directly to having laws be able to be updated as tech progresses. You want to live in a world where someone using their RC devices can impede on your privacy because the law hasn't caught up?
My privacy is my right on my property in areas not easily accessed by public land (that is the part you keep forgetting to reference in your arguments btw; Private lade is not included within the scope of photographing private land). When someone infringes upon it I get defensive. (even in hypotheticals)