Beware of flying drones in Colorado..

RobotWorkshop · 2013-07-17 13:58

Beware of flying drones in Colorado......

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/drone-hunting-colorado-172357477.html

Ken Gracey · 2013-07-17 14:19

Seems like a misinformed community. They should also shoot down any R/C aircraft and volunteer to lose other freedoms they enjoy, like shooting guns. One loss precedes another. . .picking and choosing freedoms to surrender to local governments sets bad precedent.

Part of the problem, in my view, is that the media has labelled quadcopters as "drones". How come something as benign as an FMA Copilot wasn't also called a drone? I think that drones carry weapons, not cameras, smaller robots, and all of the other things we love to work with.

W9GFO · 2013-07-17 14:31

Agreed about the "drone" moniker. IMO the usage of the word "drone" should be reserved only for military applications. However, as I read it this Colorado town is proposing to offer bounties only on an "unmanned aerial vehicle whose markings and configuration are consistent with those used on any similar craft known to be owned or operated by the United States federal government."It is confusing wording that some may interpret as meaning any UAV that bears a resemblance to a known government vehicle.

NWCCTV · 2013-07-17 14:40

to be owned or operated by the United States federal government.

Yea, That will fly with the feds!!! Let them shoot them down and see what happens when the black coats show up at their door step to haul them away for destruction of Federal Property. Is it election time in Colorado or something?

W9GFO · 2013-07-17 16:15

Also note the caption to the image, somebody can't count.

ElectricAye · 2013-07-17 16:16

I hope they pass the law. Just imagine the storm of armored quadcopters that would soon be blackening the sun over their town if they do. It could be a new sport. And everyone could get creative with the kinds of "debris" that rains down in the event of taking a hit.

Oh please pass this law. Oh pleeeeeeease.

ElectricAye · 2013-07-17 16:25

W9GFO wrote: »

Also note the caption to the image, somebody can't count.

You obviously are behind the times. The new town ordinance declares that 6 = 8.
Pi has also been simplified to 3. And everyone who speaks at a town meeting must do so through a mouth filled with chewing tobacco.

Chris Savage · 2013-07-17 17:03

Pretty soon Model Rocketry will probably come under fire too then.

xanadu · 2013-07-17 23:56

I flew my copters and planes in public places for too long! The problem I had is everyone loves it! The response is overwhelming. I'm also safety first kind of guy, and after reading many articles like this I completely stopped flying in public places. It was fun while it lasted, but it's just not worth it. You'll see a police car in this video about 3:05. He had no problems at all with it, thought I should charge admission. It all depends on who you run into and what mood they're in.

I am not going to be the person to aid the general public in their misunderstandings. I don't think it's right to fly copters around public places because it causes some people grief and concern over privacy. There will always be those that cannot accept that which they do not understand, and it's best to just give them their space if you cannot convince them otherwise.

In the meantime if someone calls one of my copters a drone, I simply educate them on the subject and make sure they understand that it's a hobby not goverment. When I see lawmakers going after people, I remind them about the educational benefits of designing, building and flying. I've never had anyone deny anything about it after that. I have spoken with the FAA and quite a few names that popped up in articles just like this and they're fighting for us, but we need to appraoch the situation delicately and not shove it down anyone's throat.

The best thing to do is level with these people, show them we are responsible, show them the good side, and respect their fears. Write them letters, inform and teach them, and then they will understand.

photomankc · 2013-07-19 05:40

xanadu wrote: »

The best thing to do is level with these people, show them we are responsible, show them the good side, and respect their fears. Write them letters, inform and teach them, and then they will understand.

I admire your optimism, but I think we are headed for a world like Idocracy. Where screaming and grunting while you tear down that you don't understand (which is nearly everything) is the normal response. It's not going to take too long, The more of these that make their way out in the population the more they will be used to harass and aggravate people and then the political creatures respond with the only thing they know to how to do. Tax something, or ban something. You have the jerks that use them to spy on people's private property, to peek in windows and hover over someone's house in the burbs.

ElectricAye · 2013-07-19 20:44

The Deer Trail ordinance states, "The Town of Deer Trail shall issue a reward of $100 to any shooter who presents a valid hunting license and the following identifiable parts of an unmanned aerial vehicle whose markings and configuration are consistent with those used on any similar craft known to be owned or operated by the United States federal government."

Okay, so here's the plan. Everyone puts $50 into the kitty. Then fly your drones over the town and have them buzz a wide circle around the Deer Trail water tower.
Whoever estimates closest how many minutes it takes before the town of Deer Trail is living without a water supply, wins the kitty.

It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Except it would be the fish doing the shooting. And it would be their own barrel.

CuriousOne · 2013-07-19 21:10

Actually, people dislike "drones" or any other flying objects due to fear of their privacy infringement. Live example - My kids love to fly RC planes/copters in yard. Sometimes we retrofit them with more powerfull and fancier led. Once, I've installed high power red led on front of it. When a neighbour saw our flight, he said, "I hope it has no CAMERA, otherwise I'll call the police". So, I perfectly understand their concern. Say I'm having topless tan in my backyard, I would not be happy knowing that a "drone" or whatsoever with camera can be above me and filming me, no matter how high tech it is.

WBA Consulting · 2013-07-19 22:37

The funny thing is that the fear has nothing to do with "drones". It is all about invasion of privacy. Since mounting a camera became possible for a remote control aircraft, the fear of invading privacy has gone viral.
Very sad that anyone can take this sort of article seriously. I do hope that people like those on this forum and involved with the AMA can stop this sort of moronic activity.

I absolutely hate the misuse of the term drone. As I have said before, here is my take:
If you are controlling/piloting an aircraft by means of visual sight, it is not a drone.
If you are controlling/piloting an aircraft by means of a wireless video signal and you cannot see the aircraft unaided, it can be considered a drone.
If the aircraft can operate on its own out of your unaided visual range, it is a drone.

ElectricAye · 2013-07-20 10:02

CuriousOne wrote: »

... When a neighbour saw our flight, he said, "I hope it has no CAMERA, otherwise I'll call the police". So, I perfectly understand their concern. ....

In the US, I think the buzz phrase handed down from the US Supreme Court is that people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy," and any violation of that reasonable expectation could be a violation of the law. That goes for eavesdropping, people peeping into your windows, etc. However, it then begs the question: what is "reasonable"? For example, how is a camera-equipped RC copter so different than a Cessna flying several thousand feet above their house with a telephoto-equipped camera? Or even a satellite? If you're sitting nude in your backyard, there's a non-zero chance your shiny rear end could end up on Google Earth. So should Google's aerial photographers be banned? Should all aerial photography be banned? Should there be a "do not photograph" registry of households?

People are getting bent out of shape about "drones" and such and yet Google and Microsoft, credit card companies, etc. are all amassing huge amounts of private data on everyone via the internet and shopping habits. Yet I haven't yet heard of any city governments issuing a call to arms or setting bounties on those organizations.

I'm a very private person and it would irk me to have somebody buzzing around my property, photographing everything I do. But I find this particular reaction to drones to be especially ridiculous, especially in light of everything else that is going on, which is far, far more invasive. I also think it's absurd that the same people who declare they have the unfettered right to tote loaded weapons around in their underpants are telling the girl scouts they shouldn't be allowed to fly their quadcopters around.

ctwardell · 2013-07-20 10:53

ElectricAye wrote: »

I'm a very private person and it would irk me to have somebody buzzing around my property, photographing everything I do. But I find this particular reaction to drones to be especially ridiculous, especially in light of everything else that is going on, which is far, far more invasive. I also think it's absurd that the same people who declare they have the unfettered right to tote loaded weapons around in their underpants are telling the girl scouts they shouldn't be allowed to fly their quadcopters around.

Don't worry ElectricEye, I doubt there any drones that can fly as high as your ivory tower.

C.W.

xanadu · 2013-07-20 12:50

The camera issue is funny, not many cameras especially GoPro can even get a picture of someone in good enough detail to violate their privacy.

Here's a still that I emailed to about 20 people who were annoyed that they couldn't see their face in the pic... Oh well can't win em all. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/79058769/IMG_0844.JPG

ElectricAye · 2013-07-20 13:47

ctwardell wrote: »

Don't worry ElectricEye, I doubt there any drones that can fly as high as your ivory tower.....

Oh great. Now everyone knows about my tower made from elephant tusks. Thanks to you, C.W., I'm now going to start getting hate mail from the World Wildlife Fund, inquiries from Interpol, and ads in Chinese urging me to enhance my manhood with powdered rhinoceros horns. Geez. Thanks a heap.

xanadu wrote: »

...

Here's a still that I emailed to about 20 people who were annoyed that they couldn't see their face in the pic... ....

Nice photo!

xanadu · 2013-07-20 16:02

Thanks here's some more if you want to check them out - https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/79058769/CopterPics.rar

Some look good printed out 8x10. Please do whatever you want since I cannot use them commercially. Most are from a Canon S100 (using CHDK intervalometer script) or the GoPro 3 Black in time lapse mode. A couple might be 1080 frame grabs. Either way it was kind of sad to give this up. If I ever get my commercial pilots license I would love to continue this.

Edit: Actually it was really sad to give this up, but I will continue to fly at AMA fields and not take pictures. Anxiously awaiting the Elev-8 Super as well

CuriousOne · 2013-07-21 01:02

The obivous difference between camera equipped rc copter and cessna with telezoom/satellite/etc, is tremendous difference in amount of people who could afford either. Simple RC copter+keychain camera will cost you less than $50. Average satellite launch costs $200 million.

frank freedman · 2013-07-21 02:27

ElectricAye wrote: »

In the US, I think the buzz phrase handed down from the US Supreme Court is that people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy," and any violation of that reasonable expectation could be a violation of the law. That goes for eavesdropping, people peeping into your windows, etc. However, it then begs the question: what is "reasonable"? For example, how is a camera-equipped RC copter so different than a Cessna flying several thousand feet above their house with a telephoto-equipped camera? Or even a satellite? If you're sitting nude in your backyard, there's a non-zero chance your shiny rear end could end up on Google Earth. So should Google's aerial photographers be banned? Should all aerial photography be banned? Should there be a "do not photograph" registry of households?

People are getting bent out of shape about "drones" and such and yet Google and Microsoft, credit card companies, etc. are all amassing huge amounts of private data on everyone via the internet and shopping habits. Yet I haven't yet heard of any city governments issuing a call to arms or setting bounties on those organizations.

I'm a very private person and it would irk me to have somebody buzzing around my property, photographing everything I do. But I find this particular reaction to drones to be especially ridiculous, especially in light of everything else that is going on, which is far, far more invasive. I also think it's absurd that the same people who declare they have the unfettered right to tote loaded weapons around in their underpants are telling the girl scouts they shouldn't be allowed to fly their quadcopters around.

I have actually been given to understand that you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, Just not in a public place. Which is why photo enforcement is allowable for example, why video surveillance is allowable and admissible. The problem lies in what is "public". When you drive and your license plate is tracked you are on a public road. Most would also agree that if you are hanging out in the altogether in your own back yard, then you should not have to worry about idiot with a flying camera. your house and back yard are not public places and that would make the operator the equivalent of a peeping tom. It may be perfectly innocent to experiment with a flying camera in the neighborhood, but people are too sensitized in todays corrosive political climate. Just read some of the garbage called comments on news articles from all points of the political compass. Scary, none has a monopoly on mass numbers of ID 10 T 's. Besides, I really would object if my new top secret Illudium PU-32 Space Modulator V3.0 were to be discovered by the unwashed masses living in my hood. At least until the cloaking device is in place, and the tin hats are sized and tested...........

ElectricAye · 2013-07-21 07:43

The point I was trying to make is that, in the US, our right to privacy is already protected by the doctrine of having a "reasonable expectation." So anyone using a drone/quadcopter or microphones or camera equipment (or whatever) will be subject to that legal concept. I don't think new laws need to be passed just to cover drones (although safety and noise issues are a different matter). And I personally believe people are entitled to as much privacy as possible - privacy is what makes human individuality possible. What I am smirking at is how drones in particular have been singled out for political purposes. While some people might shrug off a corporation's ability to fly over a neighborhood at 3000 feet and take hi res photos of every thing happening on the ground, including what might be visible through windows, etc, those same people seem eager to tie themselves in knots over the idea of a quadcopter buzzing around next door. Besides the difference in costs for the technology (small private plane or satellite vs. quadcopter), what is the fundamental difference insofar as our right to privacy goes? And how could/should we, as a society, handle activities like aerial photography, etc. as a practical matter?

[This message was sent from the top of ElectricAye's pile of elephant tusks, far too high for satellites or Google's new Loon cameras to capture.]

frank freedman · 2013-07-21 08:43

Perhaps the monolithic impersonal corporation does not seem as real and therefore threatening to some one as say their neighbor who may be of the Gladys Cravits mold.

W9GFO · 2013-07-21 22:07

FAA says it's not okay to shoot down drones...

http://news.yahoo.com/faa-warns-public-against-shooting-guns-drones-183617273.html

Clock Loop · 2013-07-21 22:59

Bleep bloop bleeep. Trying to remove rotors on a car with a hammer is not a good idea. Use bolts and nuts and work the rotors off using the caliper mount as force points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wUQMvlH39XA#t=102s

Why bother with any of that tho...
this works great... with muckin it all up.

xanadu · 2013-07-21 23:26

Clock Loop wrote: »

Bleep bloop bleeep. Trying to remove rotors on a car with a hammer is not a good idea. Use bolts and nuts and work the rotors off using the caliper mount as force points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wUQMvlH39XA#t=102s

Why bother with any of that tho...
this works great... with muckin it all up.

Ya can't git one a dem at Wallmarts.

Peter KG6LSE · 2013-07-24 19:57

NOT LEGAL Iam gonna say one word......... Microwaves ........
just think of it .and ponder . BUZZZZZZZZZZ dinner is served .

ElectricAye · 2013-07-24 21:37

Who could have ever dreamed it would come to this?

Of course this raises the question: is it possible that the only way to stop a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone?

It certainly seems to suggest a lack of imagination (not to mention technical knowledge) operating on that shooting range.

ctwardell · 2013-07-25 14:35

ElectricAye wrote: »

Who could have ever dreamed it would come to this?

Of course this raises the question: is it possible that the only way to stop a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone?

It certainly seems to suggest a lack of imagination (not to mention technical knowledge) operating on that shooting range.

Does this bother you?

C.W.

ElectricAye · 2013-07-25 16:51

ctwardell wrote: »

Does this bother you?

C.W.

Seeing people destroy perfectly good quadcopters is painful to watch.
Knowing that violators of my privacy could be dealt with in ways other than launching projectiles at them makes me laugh and cringe. Cringe because I know that whatever projectile goes up must come down - somewhere - and that somewhere could be a playground or somebody's bedroom a mile away. Laugh because it just looks so ignorant (shooting at an RC car? really guys?), not to mention so Freudian.
The narrator's comment that 30,000 drones are about to be launched against the American people (as opposed to "by them" = us) seems a little biased, manipulative, or grossly misinformed.
On the other hand, if some people out there have plenty of excess cash they are willing to squander on using drones for target practice, I'd be more than happy to sell them all they want. Now if only there were a way to make toy balloons, model railroad cars, and cotton candy look just as threatening to freedom and democracy, then perhaps there is a future target practice market for Radio Shack to consider.

xanadu · 2013-07-25 23:32

Idiots with guns are more of a threat than anyone with an RC vehicle. Ask any law enforcement. I have had the honor of experiencing this first hand, recently.

They're just doing that Smile for views.

ctwardell · 2013-07-26 05:50

ElectricAye wrote: »

Seeing people destroy perfectly good quadcopters is painful to watch.
Knowing that violators of my privacy could be dealt with in ways other than launching projectiles at them makes me laugh and cringe. Cringe because I know that whatever projectile goes up must come down - somewhere - and that somewhere could be a playground or somebody's bedroom a mile away. Laugh because it just looks so ignorant (shooting at an RC car? really guys?), not to mention so Freudian.
The narrator's comment that 30,000 drones are about to be launched against the American people (as opposed to "by them" = us) seems a little biased, manipulative, or grossly misinformed.
On the other hand, if some people out there have plenty of excess cash they are willing to squander on using drones for target practice, I'd be more than happy to sell them all they want. Now if only there were a way to make toy balloons, model railroad cars, and cotton candy look just as threatening to freedom and democracy, then perhaps there is a future target practice market for Radio Shack to consider.

"Knowing that violators of my privacy could be dealt with in ways other than launching projectiles at them makes me laugh and cringe."

Given that the US Government has become the biggest violator of privacy do you really think that you'll have any recourse?

Once there are a significant number of surveillance drones there will be no reaonable expectation of privacy, so no laws will be considered broken.

"Cringe because I know that whatever projectile goes up must come down."

So maybe these patriots in the video are doing you a service by finding better ways to down a drone.

They did state in the end of video that we should come together and address the drone situation lawfully, so they aren't as ignorant as they look from Mt. Ivory.

The big issue is really that quadcopters and the like have really changed the game. Typical RC aircraft are generally flown at RC flying fields and more recently in parks, NOT usually in the immediate vicinity of private property.
This was mainly due to the flight envelope of fixed wing aircraft, they need a lot of space and, other than the extreme 3D stuff, don't hover.

A quad changes that entire dynamic, due to the ability to hover and make rapid changes in direction, couple that with a miniature camera and you have a perfect surveillance platform.

Weaponizing a quad is a fairly trivial matter for someone that is bent on hurting people, so there is another reason for concern.

It would be in the best interest of Parallax and others in the quadcopter field to work with a group like the Academy of Model Aeronautics to come up with guidelines and safety codes applying to the use of their products.

C.W.

Beware of flying drones in Colorado..

Comments