....
So maybe these patriots in the video are doing you a service by finding better ways to down a drone....
C.W.
There's no doubt in my mind that the same people seen shooting into the air in that video will be flying drones around in 2-4 years. The only difference is that their drones will be armed with AR-15s. And when people try to pass laws against gun-bearing drones, such laws will be gunned down by special interest groups. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that 5 years from now the only way anyone will be able to fly anything via RC is if it's got a gun attached. The only way to stop a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone.
Apparently shooting down drones is nothing new nor is it hypothetical any longer. If you search YouTube for hunters shoot down multirotor, you'll see what I mean. However, I should probably warn you, it's not for the squeamish.
Those videos also raise the question: who is responsible if a drone causes damage because somebody shot it down? If a drone riddled with bullets careens out of control and hits the guy who shot it, then it saws off his ears with the broken propeller blades and sets him on fire with the punctured LiPo battery, who's at fault?
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.]
Hello!
I happen to agree. I live in a (reasonably) secure building. It wears cameras all over the hallways and the elevators, and the fire stairs, and also the lobby. And especially the basement. Do I like being seen by a dolt who failed to become a city cop? No. The fact that the guy who leads the detail was one, I don't mind, I appreciate.
What does bother me are the boobs and dolts over there who are trying to pass that kind of legislation. I actually saw one of the company's new Quadcopters once. Handsome thing.
Now if someone wants to try blasting his Fox Double at one of those, he should be treated to the output of a classic paintgun. That is they should drop the things on him.
Actually EA, my repeater scope already saw you and arranged for it to be covered in a very large cloaking field.
Awhile back I was reading about the history of the Hale telescope at the Palomar Observatory...when they transported the giant mirror across the country to its final site they were very concerned (this was in the 1940s) that a fanatic would shoot the mirror during transit with a rifle because of the concern that the telescope would spy on him in his backyard.
Nutcases never change....only the times they live in do.
Awhile back I was reading about the history of the Hale telescope at the Palomar Observatory...when they transported the giant mirror across the country to its final site they were very concerned (this was in the 1940s) that a fanatic would shoot the mirror during transit with a rifle because of the concern that the telescope would spy on him in his backyard.
Nutcases never change....only the times they live in do.
What did you read? It happened during the great depression's tail end. They were trying to prevent hobos from riding along, and their investment.
Remember our favorite intern's photo with those rapid fire paint guns that are also good for blasting aliens? Like that. A while ago a hobby shop here sold a widget that enabled an RC plane to participate in an RC plane version of the bomber competition that the military used to run every year.
Those videos also raise the question: who is responsible if a drone causes damage because somebody shot it down? If a drone riddled with bullets careens out of control and hits the guy who shot it, then it saws off his ears with the broken propeller blades and sets him on fire with the punctured LiPo battery, who's at fault?
I imagine it would depend largely on the perceived reasonableness of the actions. So if I shoot the half naked man outside messing with my daughters bedroom window and he jumps in his car and speeds to the hospital and kills a family of four you could argue I'm at fault because I am the proximate cause or you argue he's at fault because he is the original cause. That's how felony murder works right? Cop kills bystander while breaking up an armed robbery the cause of the death is the officer's bullet but the cause of the officer shooting is the illegal act of armed robbery and we punish the surviving robber for the chain of consequences it produced. So proximate cause is not always the winner. Like everything it turns to all manor of shades of grey. What if I shoot the guy outside my daughter's window just with his iPhone recording her get undressed? Was it reasonable to take lethal action where the illegal act was not lethal, just egregious?
Now all that said.... I don't own the airspace above my 40 acre country property and the act of filming my outdoor activities is not a lethal one, however I think CLEAR rules need to be established as to what is and is not permissible in using that airspace. Flying a hovering camera above people's private property to single them out for your private surveillance is not even close to the same thing as aerial mapping or satellite photos that show your pickup in the driveway on one given day 2 years ago. That is not a real argument. Then there is the question of, if someone violates those rules with a tele-operated vehicle what is the suggested course of action? How long do they get to operate it filming me before it's reasonable to take some action to stop it? If I call the county Sheriff what can I expect them to do about a flying machine violating the law that's controlled from an unknown remote source? What if I just jam the control frequency and it falls from the sky just the same?
I do think the word 'drone' has worked people into a tizzy but there is some problem mapping laws that would clearly apply to a man standing there with a camera to a remote piloted aircraft. In the one case if law enforcement arrives they can take custody of the person performing the act, in the other there is only a machine that is hovering around outside your reach.
Comments
There's no doubt in my mind that the same people seen shooting into the air in that video will be flying drones around in 2-4 years. The only difference is that their drones will be armed with AR-15s. And when people try to pass laws against gun-bearing drones, such laws will be gunned down by special interest groups. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that 5 years from now the only way anyone will be able to fly anything via RC is if it's got a gun attached. The only way to stop a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone.
Those videos also raise the question: who is responsible if a drone causes damage because somebody shot it down? If a drone riddled with bullets careens out of control and hits the guy who shot it, then it saws off his ears with the broken propeller blades and sets him on fire with the punctured LiPo battery, who's at fault?
In Hawaii, the drones shoot the surfers shooting the curl. Beautiful HD video: http://vimeo.com/83187924
Hello!
I happen to agree. I live in a (reasonably) secure building. It wears cameras all over the hallways and the elevators, and the fire stairs, and also the lobby. And especially the basement. Do I like being seen by a dolt who failed to become a city cop? No. The fact that the guy who leads the detail was one, I don't mind, I appreciate.
What does bother me are the boobs and dolts over there who are trying to pass that kind of legislation. I actually saw one of the company's new Quadcopters once. Handsome thing.
Now if someone wants to try blasting his Fox Double at one of those, he should be treated to the output of a classic paintgun. That is they should drop the things on him.
Actually EA, my repeater scope already saw you and arranged for it to be covered in a very large cloaking field.
What happens when the drones start fighting back.
Look like a good argument for armming drones?
Nutcases never change....only the times they live in do.
What did you read? It happened during the great depression's tail end. They were trying to prevent hobos from riding along, and their investment.
Remember our favorite intern's photo with those rapid fire paint guns that are also good for blasting aliens? Like that. A while ago a hobby shop here sold a widget that enabled an RC plane to participate in an RC plane version of the bomber competition that the military used to run every year.
So if it is possible to buy a quadcopter for under $100 (erco?), you could make a profit here!
I imagine it would depend largely on the perceived reasonableness of the actions. So if I shoot the half naked man outside messing with my daughters bedroom window and he jumps in his car and speeds to the hospital and kills a family of four you could argue I'm at fault because I am the proximate cause or you argue he's at fault because he is the original cause. That's how felony murder works right? Cop kills bystander while breaking up an armed robbery the cause of the death is the officer's bullet but the cause of the officer shooting is the illegal act of armed robbery and we punish the surviving robber for the chain of consequences it produced. So proximate cause is not always the winner. Like everything it turns to all manor of shades of grey. What if I shoot the guy outside my daughter's window just with his iPhone recording her get undressed? Was it reasonable to take lethal action where the illegal act was not lethal, just egregious?
Now all that said.... I don't own the airspace above my 40 acre country property and the act of filming my outdoor activities is not a lethal one, however I think CLEAR rules need to be established as to what is and is not permissible in using that airspace. Flying a hovering camera above people's private property to single them out for your private surveillance is not even close to the same thing as aerial mapping or satellite photos that show your pickup in the driveway on one given day 2 years ago. That is not a real argument. Then there is the question of, if someone violates those rules with a tele-operated vehicle what is the suggested course of action? How long do they get to operate it filming me before it's reasonable to take some action to stop it? If I call the county Sheriff what can I expect them to do about a flying machine violating the law that's controlled from an unknown remote source? What if I just jam the control frequency and it falls from the sky just the same?
I do think the word 'drone' has worked people into a tizzy but there is some problem mapping laws that would clearly apply to a man standing there with a camera to a remote piloted aircraft. In the one case if law enforcement arrives they can take custody of the person performing the act, in the other there is only a machine that is hovering around outside your reach.