Slashdot Mirror
Texas Declares War On Robots
Mr_Blank writes "Organizations like the EFF and ACLU have been raising the alarm over increased government surveillance of U.S. citizens. Legislators haven't been quick to respond to concerns of government spying on citizens. But Texas legislators are apparently quite concerned that private citizens operating hobby drones might spot environmental violations by businesses. Representative Lance Gooden has introduced HB912 which proposes: 'A person commits an offense if the person uses or authorizes the use of an unmanned vehicle or aircraft to capture an image without the express consent of the person who owns or lawfully occupies the real property captured in the image. ('Image' is defined as including any type of recorded telemetry from sensors that measure sound waves, thermal, infrared, ultraviolet, visible light, or other electromagnetic waves, odor, or other conditions.)' Can you foresee any unintended consequences if this proposal becomes law?"
Another reader notes that New Hampshire has introduced a similar bill: "Neal Kurk, a Republican member of New Hampshire's House of Representatives knows that those drones present a growing privacy concern, and in response has introduced a bill that would ban all aerial photography in the state. That is, unless you're working for the government. The bill, HB 619-FN (PDF), is blessedly short, and I suggest reading the whole thing for yourself." Here's part of the bill: "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground."
If I take a picture in a hot air balloon of a sunset and happen to capture an empty field that I do not own, am I guilty?
What about drones require special treatment v.s. existing peeping tom laws? http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/peeping-tom.aspx
So what, will entire states just be blacked out of satellite view?
If EFF or Dems proposed this, they'd be calling it a win for privacy, not an anti-environmental move. People have a right to privacy in places where they have a reasonable expectation.
Goolgle maps and others will be banned in new TX / old Mexico
This would mean Google wouldn't be able to combine its driverless car experiment with Street View imaging on Texas soil.
So, it's not an actual war with robots? Why is real life not as awesome as my imagination thinks it should be?
self defense? Now they're walking all over my 2nd amendment rights!
Looking through this short, sweet bill, Doesn't this mean that Google Maps/Apple Maps etc, shall now be illegal in the state of New Hampshire unless they are "investigators"?
I can't see this lasting long. Already sent to AOPA.
No more shots from a helicopter.
Also I would guess we are only a few years from replacing camera on boom or rails with a flying digital camera.
Does that mean that Google Earth is illegal in NH? Are we going to see Google black out NH and TX?
nor are [they] intended to limit employees of governmental agencies or other entities, public or private, who, in the course and scope of their employment and supported by articulable suspicion, attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of a person during an investigation, surveillance, or monitoring of conduct to obtain evidence of suspected illegal activity.
"arÂticÂuÂlaÂble, adj. That can be articulated"
"Definition of articulable: capable of being articulated"
Aren't you glad these are people writing laws? So as long as the suspicion can be voiced or sign-languaged (or maybe winked with Morse code?), it's good to go.
It could cost ya'.
As usual: one rule for the state, and one rule for the peons. They just forgot to add exemptions for their pals in certain industries.
So nobody is allowed to video anything anymore, except the government.
The wealthy can simply pay the government to not record their actions, and continue to break regulations.
Great plan for the people in power.
There are definitely inappropriate uses of robotic photography, but this isn't the solution.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Let's say the New Hampshire bill passes. Would it then be illegal to take a photo while jumping?
And how will traffic choppers operate?
My aerial photography should be fine, I just use a two-point tethered weather balloon (two people holding it to the ground, one controlling the shot's direction), usually at about 300 feet off the ground.
BlameBillCosby.com
There was a fellow who had as his hobbies being a private pilot and amateur photographer. Part of how he funded these hobbies was taking a nice camera with him on flights, photographing farms from the air, then selling the framed prints to the farm's residents. It was a bit of an odd business model, as when he was taking the photos he had not previously contacted the residents and had no idea if they would be willing to pay for the photos ...
The way some of these bits of legislation are worded, that business model would be illegal. So that is a bit of an unintended consequence.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
I'd think they way to get around this is for one to make a citizens arrest using the overhead pictures.
The law should protect me here....
Moreover, does this mean if I use google satellite maps as evidence for something that I could violate this law? Hey Texas neighbor, here's a picture of your house showing the tree/bush crosses the boundary of my property......Now chop it down.
We ask Google and Apple to disable maps apps in Texas, since you have the option to view the satellite imagery and street view data.
So, it appears that this is outlawing attaching a camera to your kite, to a model rocket, to an arrow... many forms of amateur photography are basically becoming misdemeanor offenses. so if one decides to start their iphone recording and throw it up into the air to see what they can see, or throw their recording ipad like a frisbee in the park, if either captures images of a place or person who didn't give express permission to photograph, you could be charged.
that's all nutso to me.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
I guess that's the end of New helicopters. Surveyors and cartographers rely on aerial photography Way to piss off the construction industry AND the press at the same time
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
I suspect that "A person commits an offense..." would read better as "'A person or government commits an offense..."
^_^
Where do you draw the line?
Aerial photography that has many useful applications, good. (Crop analysis, Google, Bing maps, Archaeology...)
Sicko using a cheap helico to grab pictures of me and my wife making love by the pool, bad.
Concerned citizens using same type of tech as sicko to prove that bad people are ignoring the law, and polluting, well, good?
Personally I'll take my chances with the sicko, but then again, I do have a decent shotgun. Don't think I need the Gov. to protect my "intimate" airspace.
More babies, making laws to protect stuff , they have gained, by breaking the law.
People are just scared someone might find out what they have actually been up to.
If it can been seen from any place, it is public.
If you want privacy, build a box, and stay in it.
Unless NOAA is going to get permission from every landowner in Texas! Also no more satellite views from any thing like Google/Apple/Yahoo/Garmin/Tomtom/etc... Maps.
Another politician not thinking any farther then their personal money sources! Most likely a group who know they are breaking the law and are trying to keep other from learning about it.
Exactly do they think that "manned" drones (erstwhile known as helicopters) don't have cameras pointed at them?
JFC
What they're really trying to prevent is someone from taking videos of them in their backyards sunbathing in the nude or doing something with the neighbor's daughter.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
So basically, any organization outside the US (including foreign governments with remote sensing satellites) can now see what it is illegal for US residents to see? Wow.
And WTF does support by the ground mean? If I take videos/pictures as a pilot or a passenger of an aircraft, does that count? What if I do launch a baloon, but have to manually tell it to take pictures and have the instructions sent wirelessly (which, umm, I do every 1/10 of a second by my ground-based triggering mechanism)?
I thought we liked privacy here?
... except in the case of immediate pursuit of a suspected felon.
I'm actually more worried about the government using drones to fly over my neighborhood than peeping toms or Google maps. The latter is a nuisance, the former is a violation of my rights under the Fourth Amendment (that's the one that covers search and seizure/privacy).
Also, it does not restrict satellite photos, Google maps, etc. Also does not restrict driverless cars or filming police when they pull you over (or vice-versa), as long as the cameras are less than 6 feet off the ground and filming a public place.
I think it could be better, but it's a pretty good start.
> and in response has introduced a bill that would ban all aerial photography in the state.
So land surveyors and photogrammetrists are the enemy now?
--
BMO
You seem to be confusing the Americans with companies that want to violate environmental laws.
I think it might be easier so that we can properly make all of these class distinctions clear.
So Assault weapons, for example, should only be available to government and government contractors who may or may not be working for the government at any given moment. Aerial drones? Same story.
We have to make these class distinctions clear or else many people will unwittingly make the mistake of thinking we have a government of the people, by the people and/or for the people. This is simply not the case and we should all be 100% clear on that point.
Apparently odor sensors have been banned in the entire beltway area because of their ability to detect and identify the sources of bullsh*t.
I didn't know it was a government drone, I thought it was just some lawbreaker's. . . . . that's why I shot it down.
This is just a special case of privacy laws.
Thanks to court decisions, people inside a building who aren't in plain view from the outside are already protected from police using thermal imaging without a warrant in most cases (sorry, I don't have the citation handy, but it was a 21st-century Supreme Court case, I think one dealing with a marijuana grower).
Laws like this would extend this privacy to "snooping" from private citizens.
A reasonable law would, upon prior notification to the public or to the affected person *or* a hobbyists' exception, exempt any "what could a human being, using a zoom feature on a common consumer-grade camera and common consumer-grade recording equipment, get if he were in a helicopter at the location the drone were at, or a closer location that the drone had a legal right to be at" provided that the drone in question had the legal right to be where it was.
In other words, I could put a consumer-grade camera and microphone on a drone and fly it over my property and spy on my neighbors, or with FAA approval I could fly in it "airspace" that is so high that the landowner has no veto power, but I could not fly it 30 feet over his back-yard and take photos. If I used cameras that exceeded the capability of consumer-grade equipment, I would have to show that IF I was optimally located, I could have obtained similar information using only consumer-grade equipment.
"Prior notification" means either an individual notification to the target of the surveillance that there is surveillance going on, or a public notice that it will be happening. This notification would have the times and types of surveillance and enough lead time for the person to take counter-measures.
The hobbyists' exception would exempt hobbyists who do not do this sort of thing on a regular basis from being prosecuted for ignorance of the law or making a spontaneous decision to go put a camera on their RC plane some Saturday afternoon.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I notice the NH wording has no mention of consent. So not only can I not take a picture of your dwelling, you can't either, nor can you ask me to. (hell, if you ask me, and I do it, thats conspiracy!)
We had an issue here in MA a while back where a private BDSM party got raided by police, for this very sort of issue.... paddles and whips were called "insturments of abuse", because there is no provision in the law for consent.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I had Texas pegged as building the biggest, meanest, most picture-takingest robots that you ever damn saw, son.
It almost seems like these legislators have spent a bit too much time over on the DIYDrones site and got a bit scared of what is available at the consumer level.
Time to offend someone
Passage of these bills effectively bans drones and video camera guided RC (Radio Control) aircraft because cameras are used for navigation, not just taking photos of objects of interest.
Useful applications of privately-operated drones and RC aircraft with cameras include roof inspection and birds-eye view promotional shots for real-estate listings.
Making these devices illegal will cause more harm than good.
Apparently film and analogue recording (audio?) will be allowed ;)
Famous last words:"but...."
An outright ban would probably result in the death of a search & rescue subject. Adding a proviso that exempts volunteer search & rescue organizations is required here and it specifically needs to address training activities that normally do not involve law enforcement.
I'm sensing a business opportunity here. Manufacturing and selling 100ft. tall tripods.
I'll make it a habit to jump around, jump around, jump up jump up and get down when I'm taking pictures in NH, to make sure my feet aren't on the ground for any of them.
Live free or die, my ass.
Obligatory XKCD.... wait, no, Happiness and Cyanide.
http://www.explosm.net/comics/1783/
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
As a Texan who more and more begins to understand the value of protecting private property rights above any value of other persons or government entities' claims to have their right to snoop on anyone and anything at any time.... I'm now not so sure that this prospect of banning unmanned surveillance aircraft and publicly accessible satellite imagery that goes down to high detail of stuff on the ground is such a bad thing after all.
I've distinctly gotten the impression that American's have a heck of a lot stronger (almost zealous) "my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed, if they're a tresspassn' I'm allowed to shoot em" fantasy.
So, seriously? You don't lock the doors or windows of your home? Or do you, too, have an "(almost zealous) 'my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed'..." fantasy, enforced by lock and key?
Yeah, somehow, when the topic of gun control comes up, there's never any provision for dis-arming the security on the gated communities rich people live in.
So, taking pictures of the EXTERIOR of the dwelling from a drone is acceptable. Taking pictures of the INTERIOR is acceptable and lawful under the NH bill.
These laws are just plain dumb. We should be dealing with the trespass/stalking/harassment activities underlying this, not the act of photographing.
Fuck the enviromentalists and animal welfare nazis. If this law hurts PETA and greenpeace then we ALL win.
Pardon the pun but "manned" drones have 'skin in the game'. I mechanic and pilot are going to be determined not to get themselves killed and follow that safety checklist to the T. When it's an ITT tech just working on a fleet of ROV/drones steps will be skipped because "who's really going to catch this" and no ones safety is at risk.. that is until the drone crashes and burns into a house/trampoline/pool with occupants.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
"A mechanic..."
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
There has been some pushback on this:
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/firearms-equality-movement/#axzz2MIsTvqYJ
but no coverage on the mainstream news yet.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
If a person flies a model airplane with a camera in the airspace over THEIR OWN property and takes pictures of THEIR OWN home that includes no images of anyone else's property or possessions, that would be illegal according to my reading of the New Hampshire bill and the law it's modifying. [There's no clause in that bill indicating that it's not a crime if the owner of the property gives permission. The law it's modifying specifically defines and refers to private locations, but the bill doesn't use that same term.]
If my understanding of the bill is correct, I'd say that's a pretty big WTF.
Just like evolutional theory.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Wait until someone captures a crime that authorities *want* to prosecute and the evidence get tossed because of this bill.
They'll get my Estes Camroc when they pry my cold dead fingers from the launch button...
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Here's some more information on the meat packing plant that the robot.net article casually mentions:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01/24/civilians-drone-busts-plant-dumping-huge-stream-of-blood-into-texas-river/
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/01/20/dallas-plant-investigated-for-dumping-pig-blood-into-trinity-river/
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/20428259/columbia-packing-co-indicted-for-pigs-blood-in-trinity-river
If this bill had been law, then the guy who caught and helps stop a major polluter (when they say river of blood, they are not exaggerating) would himself potentially be a criminal.
Even ignoring that this would keep private citizens from catching polluters, the bill is definitely unconstitutional. It has been well-established that people can take photographs of private property from public vantages. Now, if this bill only restricted imaging technology that could see what is going on in a private home that has closed blinds, then that would be a different story. But in its current form it reaches too far.
I'm less worried about private citizens taking photos of private property than I am about Government taking photos of private property, all other things being equal. The fact that government is scared of the citizenry and is passing laws against them is very troubling to me. We should be scared of this type of legislation as it does not bode well for us commoners.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I really don't get why so many American's are up in arms about un-manned aircraft - there have been aircraft "looking down into" their backyards for 100 years now, who cares if it has a pilot IN IT or not. Tons and tons of police driving by your house LOOKING INTO your yard.
Inorite? We've used fighter jets to blow up brown people for decades, but only now do they start complaining about drone strikes?
Oh, wait - Estimated cost of an F35, $110M. Actual cost of an unmanned reconnaissance drone, $299.99. Which of those do you see Officer Obie casually using to peek through your bedroom window or check out your backyard pool party?
Overall, though, these rules completely disgust me. They get it exactly backward, allowing a class proven untrustworthy when given new surveillance technology to use them, while blocking any possible citizen-initiated use of the same.
I suppose I have only one thing to say - I have a shotgun, and don't tolerate weird-looking noisy birds in my backyard. So go ahead, send me some challenging skeet, boys!
At least at first glance. Since the law explicitly specifies a "person", I am sure the Federal government, and Texas state government would be inclined to argue that the law doesn't apply to them...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
To paraphrase:
"We are worried that drones might catch us breaking the law. That is just unconstitutional, we have a right to break the law and not get caught."
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
These are examples of laws used selectively on occassion to harass people who encounter an officer on a bad day. The local RC club isn't likely to run into problems but a group of kids using an AR.Drone to record their skateboarding might get fined and lose the device.
It seems to be the way laws are written anymore. Everyone is a criminal in the eyes of the law, so be quiet, sit down and don't draw attention to yourself. If you speak out they'll find a way to come after you.
Well it *is* just a _theory_.
Pretty sure they lease the sets. Similarly for photosurvey/pipeline patrol, pretty sure they are paid by the landowner.
But Texas legislators are apparently quite concerned that private citizens operating hobby drones might spot environmental violations by businesses.
Only in this backwards ass state is finding people breaking the law considered a bad thing.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I've distinctly gotten the impression that American's have a heck of a lot stronger (almost zealous) "my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed, if they're a tresspassn' I'm allowed to shoot em" fantasy.
Got bad news for ya, Chief - that's no fantasy.
But hey, don't take my word for it, go ahead and kick in your neighbor's door and find out for yourself.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
This only applies to residences, so the factory would still have been OK to photograph. Even residences, w/o identifiable people, are OK.
In addition. the proviso other entities, public or private, who, in the course and scope of their employment may conduct surveillance would let a broad range of activities to pass muster under the law. An environmental group could have people conduct surveillance if they feel a law is being broken, for example.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Government is mostly run by stupid, evil, corrupt, ignorant lawyers. The rank-and-file workers who serve those lawyers are generally stupid, lazy, incompetent, corrupt fools on power-trips. Every attempt to make such a system simultaneously do something positive for some while not trampling on everybody else is almost certain to fail.
How government works:
The public gets the exact opposite result from what it wanted: a ban on government spying on the people.
I really don't get why so many American's are up in arms about un-manned aircraft - there have been aircraft "looking down into" their backyards for 100 years now, who cares if it has a pilot IN IT or not. Tons and tons of police driving by your house LOOKING INTO your yard.
But almost no-one has raised near one third the stink about almost all their personal private conversations being intercepted and sifted through.
I've distinctly gotten the impression that American's have a heck of a lot stronger (almost zealous) "my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed, if they're a tresspassn' I'm allowed to shoot em" fantasy.
Unmanned aircraft remove so much of the cost of airborne surveillance that it becomes practical on a wholesale level, and moves the use from the realm of targeted surveillance to persistent surveillance.
And yes, I have been raising a heluva stink about other, considerably more threatening, privacy invasions and outright abrogations of constitutional limits on government power and authority.
In our defense, Texans are also big proponents of the Texascentric model of the universe.
The founders of the US didn't want direct democracy because they were (rightly) afraid of rule by the uneducated mob.
Unfortunately, the uneducated mob elects uneducated representatives, or worse, people who should know better, but turn off their "that's fucking stupid" filter because "I owe this guy a favor."
I don't know what to replace what we've got, but clearly representative democracy has failed in many ways.
--
BMO
Not to go all Godwin but this reminds me of something I noticed recently at a show of photos by Roman Vishniac: apparently one of the laws the Nazis passed in 1933 was to prohibit Jews from taking pictures in public. (Vishniac apparently snuck around this by having his daughter pose next to things he wanted to photograph.) Just a reminder of the sort of people who push for this kind of law....
I hope I don't torch your straw man too badly when I claim that in this time and age, being "in" something is very relative, especially if not further away from the object to be used than a lightsecond.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I really hate people who automatically associate intelligence with political alignment. Google "non sequitur."
I do work for a construction company that frequently uses RC quadrotors to capture aerial images of potential construction sites allowing them to create better (less expensive) bids to large government-funded projects. Since only a fraction of the actual jobs are awarded to us it's prohibitively expensive to fly a real helicopter over every potential site. Many of these projects are within the city so it's impossible to take pictures without capturing other people's property -- property that could be legally photographed by a person with a camera in a helicopter.
So, yes, this will hurt some businesses and indirectly the state government itself. Do I like the notion that anyone can spy on me at any time? No, but that's already how it is. Besides, I like being able to take photographs without fear of being sued, whether it be with a camera in my hand, kite photography, or "drone" photography, and I don't see why there's a dividing line that makes it right for me or the government but not for anyone else.
There are people in Texas smart enough to make/run a robotic unmanned drone? Disturbing, it is!
Don't worry, Big Brother is watching you with his toys though. We just can't have people tipping over the apple carts, silly peasants.
Take the Red Pill.
What do you mean by *just*?
But the only theory there is. At least from a scientific point of view.
"A wizard did it" may work for crappy TV scripts, but not for science.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Joe Biden says just shoot them out of the sky with a shotgun.
Organization? You must be joking..
Well it *is* just a _theory_.
So is gravity. If you wish to further discuss this matter, please hover yourself out here for a talk.
Er... way to fuck up, Texas? Good luck suing NASA.
Those pictures already exist. Just can't take any new ones.
You didn't read the whole TFS, and just jumped to conclusions based on someone expressing a differing opinion than you, didn't you?
Generally these balloons are manned, but not always, even so, if you read a little further down, you'll see.
for which the GP's post is a perfectly valid response.
If I were more like you, I could probably trail this up with
"Republican, I'll bet. Conservative as well."
However, there are potentially plenty of other reasons for your assinine behavior.
Independant, I am. Moderate as well. Both parties suck as much ass as these two laws. It's just government fellatio of the corporate world, wasting our money and granting to the rich and powerful in the form or more money or power. Both parties do it, and the general population suffers.
Now, if they banned government an private (but not just hobby) drones, these bills would be ok - but they aren't, they are targeting the least powerful groups to protect the more powerful groups.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
of my poorly educated gun nut friends, this is very true. 100% of my NRA friends openly fantasize about being a victim of a massive home invasion where they get to slaughter as many people legally as they can. it isnt even a stretch to say half of all NRA members openly fantasize about killing as many people as possible, without fear of repurcussion.
Some years ago, while I was working on the North Slope, in Alaska, I was having a conversation with a Texan fresh out of high school. He commented that the planes must fly slower up here, because the flight from Anchorage to Deadhorse was so long. When I tried to correct him, he had difficulty wrapping his head around the idea that Texas wasn't the biggest state, because, he said, "It's what I learned in school."
I know it's offtopic, but I still chuckle over that 20 years after the fact.
I'm going to laugh my arse off when the Engineers return to check on their livestock breeding program.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It's hard to google up very much info on that [expletive omitted]. He is quite proud of his bona fides of past disservice. He wants to do for corporate criminals what he's done for wealthy voters, protecting them from the vox populi.
Lance was also able to help steer a voter ID bill into law... and was proud to see Texas step up to protect the integrity of our elections.
Yep, they pile it high in Texas.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
So they pass a law protecting private property and privacy and we are now against it? What am I missing on Slashdot these days?
Idiot, I'll bet. Bigot as well.
These laws will do the exact opposite then what people seem to want.
The government agency's and police officer will be exempt. You want them to behave, then let everyone have cameras. This applies to cell phones, drones, dash cams etc...
If you produce frequency that can be detected by people/devices not on your property, you don't have a right to control that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I mean - honestly, people, for how long are you, US citizens, going to take this kind of nonsense ? And yes, am I glad I live in Europe... The US are, I repeat and insist, a nascent police state.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
I believe in Texas the legislature is entirely in favor of the right to bear arms. Freedom of movement, religion and speech are a bit more problematical for them.
We are the 198 proof..
Business related:
I doubt that the could ban satellite imagery, since that happens completely outside of Texas' jurisdiction, and would have a difficult time enforcing the law when the drone is launched out of state, unless the airspace belongs to the state. But it would discourage such companies from operating in the state of Texas, which reflects lost economic opportunities.
There may be something to be said for preventing corporate espionage, but there is also something to be said for independent monitoring of state and federal laws. That's true even if the "independent" monitor is a competitor, since the only effective way to operate in a regime of relaxed regulation enforcement is the break regulations yourself. An example cited is the enforcement of environmental regulations. Relaxed enforcement in this area would impede the growth of green industries, and leave future generations to pay for the environmental repercussions.
There would also be reduced innovation in other areas. Drones could be useful for a number of purposes on large properties. The ones I can think of is monitoring crops, search and rescue, as well as security (but there are surely others). Accidental spill-over may result in charges being pressed, thus discouraging the development and use of such technologies within the state.
Non-business:
This would effectively make some hobby or learning projects illegal. Let's face it, creating an unmanned vehicle that can take photographs is pretty exciting to some people. Cut out that option, and you may be discouraging people from pursuing science and technology related careers since they would not develop or maintain the interest.
That NH bill was completely rewritten in committee: It now says nothing about aerial photography, just limits use of drones. It has been OK'd by a committee and will go to the full state House for a vote eventually:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/statenewengland/995218-471/n.h.-bill-would-curtail-use-of-drones.html
Wait till it happens. There is this thing inside you that makes you not want to pull the trigger. Instead you will scream at them, force them onto the ground and wait for the cops to arrive, gun in hand.
" When it's an ITT tech just working on a fleet of ROV/drones steps will be skipped because "who's really going to catch this" and no ones safety is at risk."
so you're fear is based on an ad hom attack?
You, of course, are special and perfect, and never make mistake, but THEM PEOPLE are all fuck ups and can't be trusted to pilot.
Idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
in Texas it is a crime to report a crime!
God those people are so f*ed up it is just amazing.
yep. Cut Alaska in half,, and Texas would be the third largest state.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This may be the first time that I find myself agreeing with Texas. I'd better write this in my diary.
Perfectly legal as its supported from the ground by the lines which are operated by a person so its not un-manned.
Does that mean a person's 5 senses are inadmissable?
So, someone snaps a picture of me in smoking pot my back yard. The police are called and I get a summons. The picture is inadmissable.
Someone saw me smoking pot my back yard. The police are called and I get a summons. The testimony of the person that saw me is admissable.
I'm so confused.
I really don't get why so many American's are up in arms about un-manned aircraft - there have been aircraft "looking down into" their backyards for 100 years now, who cares if it has a pilot IN IT or not.
Maybe people just want to be left alone and not continuously stalked and spied upon? It seems to make a difference to humans whether you just happen to run into them on the street vs following their every move (stalking).
There is a difference between viewing the license plate of the vechicle in front of you and recording all license plates everywhere, building vast databases of the movement patterns of all vechicles.
Systematic surveillance and large scale imaging from drones = stalking. Flying over random houses in a hot air balloon and taking pictures != stalking.
But almost no-one has raised near one third the stink about almost all their personal private conversations being intercepted and sifted through.
While both issues need more attention this is BS. The domestic wholesale wiretapping issue has been on the table 4 > decade. Wholesale domestic drone use is a brand new issue.
I've distinctly gotten the impression that American's have a heck of a lot stronger (almost zealous) "my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed, if
I reckon this is why they call private property "private".
they're a tresspassn' I'm allowed to shoot em" fantasy.
I don't think you'll find many willing to subscribe to your unqualified trespassing = death meme.
I went through the Texan school system. We learned that Texas was the third largest state, and in Texas history we learned a lot more cool facts about our state. I'm sorry, but this is bullshit, or that person was an idiot which every school system has plenty of.
This is a direct response to someone spotting a blood river flowing out of a meat processing plant. Big business was caught with their pants down and just paid the locals to make sure it won't happen again.
No, the inference was clearly implied by the OP. Granted, the grammatical ineptitude of the sentence in question does leave its meaning open to question by pedants so inclined.
So, now in New Hampshire, if the bill is passed, and you go for a pleasure flight in a hot air balloon and take photos of your experience, you're now guilty of a misdemeanour? Or if you take a photo out of an airliner's window that happens to be over NH at the time?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Skydiving in Texas is about to become a lot more popular.
Every post you make is stupid. usually an ad hom or strawman argument.
You can't seem to think, and hate everyone. You have no clue about how the government works, you never back up anything you say with actual data,.
You are just some little insignificant spec of a human being that can't think beyond rote emotion responses.
As evidence I present: http://slashdot.org/~The+Shootist
I pity you almost as much as I pity the people around you.
You should learn to think critical and evaluate your opinions based on data. Also, see a trained professional about your anger issue.
anyways, this is why this specif post show how stupid you can be:
http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/gps-module-for-high-altitude
What would you think if I said:
Balloon can be unmanned. Tea party, I'll bet, racists as well.
oh, and if you can crawl out of your cognitive bias long enough to think about.. anything, start learning these:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
note, at no time did I tell you to change your mind about anything, just have some intellectual honest and think about it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You just can't fix stupid!
NOAA better point those weather satellites away from Texas!
Maps will load really fast in Vermont, No pictures of the building, as that would be of course too much information.
Yes, but until a few years ago, not every Tom, Dick and Harry had a camera that could zoom into your window from a mile away. FAA regulations prevent pilots from flying low over residential areas, with some limited exceptions. So, now I can't pick my nose in a public place with a reasonable expectation that if nobody is near, a photo won't end up on the net. The expectation of privacy is being whittled down by advances in technology.
Just another day in Paradise
Send some email against HB912:
Look up your reps at 'Who Represents Me -- Home': http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx
creating an image ... with the assistance of a satellite
Wouldn't geo-tagging photos be considered having "assistance" from a satellite?
Here we have a Perfect Storm wherein the Republicans combine their total allegiance to corporations (and the resultant $$) with their incredible stupidity. That coined saying, "any sufficiently massive stupidity is indistinguishable from evil," comes into play too.
Meanwhile, where's all those TeaBagger Repubs? They should be screaming "no Big Government interference with our personal R/C video tools!"
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Texas was NEVER part of Mexico. It was a Comanches territory which Mexico wanted but could never settle, since they kept being killed by the Comanches. As much as the revisionistas want it to be so, it took Texans to kill sufficient numbers of Comanches to settle this place in the "white way." (Obviously, I am torn between the wrongness of having done this, and ultimately, the lack of any way to change the past.)
I went through the Texan school system. We learned that Texas was the third largest state. . .
. . .this is bullshit. . .
Yes, it is. My story wasn't supposed to reflect all of Texas, you blithering moron. It's just a funny story. I've lived in Vermont, Texas, Washington, California, Alabama, et c. Idiots are everywhere, which you quite ably help demonstrate.
Did you just type that all up for your own amusement? I can guarantee you the GP didn't even read it, let alone click any of the links, and you're otherwise simply preaching to a choir that is already owed precious second of their lives wasted by being tricked into reading said GP's bigoted drivel in the past.
He's just an idiot, I'll bet. Troll as well.
It's even funnier that you were upset by someone mentioning a dumb Texan and then proceed to list Texas as the third largest state. (Hint: It's the second largest state.)
Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
The USA has been on this course for some time. An important step toward fascism is making sure that everybody is breaking some law, then they can be arrested and held on a whim.
The book:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
That is so true. We certainly have the best government that money can buy.
If such a law passes it wont be of any concern. We have a right to equal protection under the law.
Lance Gooden is a Republican. This is the party that is always talking about Big Government, "freedom from government", etc. Freedom from government unless your rich friends get caught polluting a river by a drone that is.
FYI, the GP was probably a subtle attempt at humor if you reread it carefully. Not unfunny imho.
Or he's simply a Texan that actually believes what he wrote, the point enforcing itself recursively.
But how is it humanly possible to enforce ban on drones as small as these:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/03/287119/british-army-unveils-new-spy-drone/
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/04/British-army-unveils-toy-sized-Black-Hornet-drones/7671360008879/
??
I really hate people who automatically associate intelligence with political alignment. Google "non sequitur."
Seriously, how could people be that stupid?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Texas bans robots.
Robots' response: "Fine! I'll build my own state! With blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the state."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Look what Franklin said in his closing speech of the constitutional convention.
Democracies always fall to despotism, that is reality. Thinking your government will continue forever is foolish and is not an evidence backed position. At some point a new government needs to replace the corrupt one; this is always an unpleasant transition and often is slow because it takes years of suffering despotism (which may include a new form of gov) before people are willing to collaborate enough to form another democracy (or other system) that is at least initially superior to the prior level of despotism.
Good governments can only be judged by how long they raise living conditions for the majority (because everybody "rounds off" the lowest minority elements. Think about that, especially in the USA.) Utopia isn't great if it only lasts for a day. Arguably, the utopia is never good because it is the pursuit of a theoretically obtainable utopia that great evils are justified.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I'm sorry, officer. I would love to give you some video evidence of the shooting that just took place across the street. I would have had it if it weren't for the new unmanned unit laws. They just sit in my basement now (*whisper* when you're not around).
Too bad the video I "wasn't" taking earlier "can't" be given to law enforcement because that would give the defendant a counter-claim or the evidence could just be thrown out, couldn't it?
Damn shame.
are not attached to ground.
and, btw, doesn't Gravity, kinda, sorta, attach things to the ground once those things stop pulling against it?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3346359&cid=42415443
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The 4 largest cities in the US by area are all in AK, too. Big doesn't begin to describe it. Note that these are cities that have consolidated with their boroughs, which is what the Alaskans call their counties. List of United States cities by area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Easy, they are Republicans. /s
No, the inference was clearly implied by the OP. Granted, the grammatical ineptitude of the sentence in question does leave its meaning open to question by pedants so inclined.
Or by shameless ideologues so inclined . . .
I am concerned that these potential laws will run afoul of freedom of the press. Today, news and traffic helicopters regularly take pictures of public areas. Drones will replace that function very soon. It would be short-sighted to make it illegal to take pictures of public areas using drones. If we do that, the only pictures we will get of flood areas or weather will be from government sanctioned drones. In 10 years the idea that your drone can't take pictures in public will seem as foolish as the failed laws trying to make it illegal to take pictures with your camera phone in public.
Yes, but until a few years ago, not every Tom, Dick and Harry had a camera that could zoom into your window from a mile away.
But they could have if they wanted. A large camera lens (1000+mm) weren't that expensive for those old 35mm SLR cameras that were common place. Add in a 2x telephoto adapter and that 1000mm lens now is effectively a 2000mm lens (requiring 2x the exposure time to 2x faster film, or opening up the f one more stop if possible). Hell I have had my camera equipment that can do that for well over a decade (getting close to 15 years now) and it was old obsolete stuff when I got it used for next to nothing. Also there was always the option to get a relatively inexpensive telescope with a camera adapter that amateur astronomers have been using for years.
Time to offend someone
This was not a law against pollution, the person who wrote the article the summary links to stole falsified that information. The original article he decided to copy the material for "his own" article used the river incident as an example of how unmanned drones photographing other people property could be good. However the original article mentions that this law would not of affected this case since it happened on public property. Unfortunately instead of a useful article we get a link to a site that prefers to lie about items and steal article items from other sites.
First thing I thought of after reading "Texas declares war on robots" was that they were simply using the Bush Doctrine to prevent Skynet...
This is probably a result of the guy in Dallas that found a meat packing plant dumping blood in a nearby river via his video-capable drone.
Any brain-dead scumbag can become a politician in the USA, so long as he/she pledges eternal allegiance to Israel. In office, these brain-cell challenged individuals will propose all sorts of laughable, constitution defying idiocy disguised as pending 'legislation'. None of it will go through, or at worst stand up to legal challenges.
Is Slashdot going to waste time and space on every moron in office suggesting yet another impossible set of laws, in complete contradiction to how the USA system of checks and balances works.
Look, if a State wishes to do something about Obama's death drone policy, and the determination of Obama's puppet-masters to bring the death drones to US skies, the answer is clear. The State has to fight, with others, to firstly ensure the State alone has power to control who gets to operate sky-born surveillance devices. Given the power of federal forces in the USA, this goal is difficult, but not impossible. The State will clearly have to continue to allow established federal intelligence and law enforcement activity, but under a much stronger set of definitions.
Individual States have the right NOT to be under military occupation by the US armed forces. This being so, the unwanted drones have to be defined as military craft, whose operation may NOT be turned against the citizens in the State. All this is covered in the constitution.
As for normal photography, even from a high point looking down (which is all aerial photography really is), well clearly this cannot be banned for a raft of reasons. The most significant reason is not based on 'rights' or 'privacy' or 'abuse of power' but the simple fact that technology is making sophisticated photography ever more trivial. Laws against photography are now like the early laws that tried to limit the printing press. They just don't work when everyone has access to the technology, and the tech is small, cheap, and all to easy to disguise. Laws need to have a practical component- to somehow be achievable WITHOUT draconian penalties for trivial offenses. You'd need a penalty of "death by slow torture" to discourage people from using their cameras in every possible circumstance today.
Our future requires learning to NOT care when people take photos of us in just about any circumstance. Even so, governments and corporations should NOT be allowed to abuse camera technology by rule of law. And these kinds of abuse we know when we see them (like the school that snuck video spyware on laptops destined for the bedrooms of teen pupils).
I could have sworn that there were many posts on this site about the evils of drones, how they invade privacy, how they could be armed and shoot speeders, how they should be banned from all airspace. It is interesting that when Charlottesville, Virginia does it it's "[a]bout bloody time" but when Texas does it it is bowing to corporations. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
It's called Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, with a bunch of narcissism thrown in for good measure.
I'll make sure the paint job on my drone has the word " POLICE " emblazoned all over it with the appropriate color scheme. :D
Hell, maybe I'll outfit it with tiny flashing red and blue LED's just because
If someone would just point out to these people that even cheap hobbyist drones can be easily armed... With guns! You'd think the average Texan would be all for them, in that case. In fact, maybe we should get the NRA involved, I'm sure they could stop this bill in its tracks.
Drones are not robots but manned vehicles where the driver/pilot sits in a chair at a remote location.
Or at least require a police permit taking up to 60 days before you can possess an erlenmeyer flask: http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=5&ti=37&pt=1&ch=13&sch=E&rl=Y
Number one on your list should be lying. Generally, it is OK for the government to lie to you, but a crime for you to lie to the government.
You can send a similar one from here: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/member-page/email/?district=4&session=83 Representative Gooden, I am writing to alert you to public opinion that is forming about your new HB912. A consensus is bubbling up on internet forums that your intention in drafting this bill was to protect corporations like Columbia from incidents similar to the Oak Cliff pig blood dumping which resulted in criminal charges. I have not found any post yet that interprets this new bill as protecting the privacy of individual citizens. I know that this was not your intention and I urge you to take action by retracting the bill and releasing a clarifying statement. Regards, Terbeaux Nou P.S. Please find attached links for two popular internet sites which are discussing your new bill: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/03/01/153241/texas-declares-war-on-robots http://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/18v0xr/hey_texas_time_to_start_writing_those_emails/
(Obviously, I am torn between the wrongness of having done this, and ultimately, the lack of any way to change the past.)
Easy. See people as individuals instead of racial groups. YOU didn't do this. Then recognize between 1864 and 1949 the 4 Geneva Conventions were established only slowly adding any kind of rules to war and conquering. Prior to that, it was considered acceptable by most nations of the world (including American Indian) to do anything necessary to kill or conquer your enemies.
So, there is nothing to be torn by. Accept that you belong to a species (not race, not nationality) that has committed horrific acts on others of it's own species. And take take pride in the fact that as a species we are working towards, and making progress at being better to our fellow man.
Anyone that would hold you responsible for the acts of other people just because you have the same color skin is exactly the kind of person we are trying to leave in our species past.
So satellite maps are suddenly illegal.
Google cars and planes are suddenly illegal.
It's an interesting point-- we used to have privacy in our back yards and now we don't.
But this is really about protecting corporations so only the government can show the corporations are polluting or otherwise breaking the law. If the government chooses not to pursue, then the corporation can continue breaking the law, earning high profits and making campaign donations.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I remember seeing a picture with Alaska superimposed over the lower 48, and it is hard to wrap your head arround how big Alaska really is. Alaska is not only 1/5 the surface of the contiguous US, but it would stretch from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian boarder at the same time. I'd had always assumed that the size was distorted by projection distortion, but Alaska really is as big as Western Europe.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
We've used fighter jets to blow up brown people for decades
The racist rants of people like you get real old. We have killed plenty of 'white' people, and for 40+ years of the last 70, the big bad boogieman for the US has been Russia. White people. Our nuclear arsenal was built to kill white people.
Yes, it sucks that we (and the rest of the world) are so aggressive, but your 'whitie is evil because they are trying to kill the poor defenseless brown people just for being brown' is just racist posturing.
Surveillance is like a lot of other things. When done once or twice, it isn't a huge deal. When done pervasively, it is a very big problem. Just like littering. If I throw a McDonald's bag out of the windows of my car, and I was the only one to ever do it, it wouldn't be worth anyone's time to even acknowledge it. If everyone is throwing all of their garbage out their car windows, we have a real problem.
"A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground." So if I take a picture of a friend while in a boat on a lake, and I capture a house in the background, it constitutes a misdemeanor unless I have the permission of the house's owner?
Yes, it is a stretch. Only a nut believes what you have typed.
Pssst - I'm white. And regardless of the "real" boogieman, we didn't directly blow Russians up, nor they, us - Instead,we took turns blowing up various pawns in Southeast Asia (not really known for its caucasian population).
What I find particularly interesting is the mention of satellites. -- They cant ban the use of satellites to image property in a particular state; that right is protected under international law and several US/Russian agreements as part of arms control efforts (ie each country can image what it wants so they know the other isnt building an attack force).
Ah, good point. I do not support the idea of drones being allowed to fly through our houses. :)
When I referred to the "my home is my castle" phrase - I was particularly thinking of the entirety of one's property, as most people seem to include their yard in their definition of "home".
I was not trying to imply that people should be allowed to look inside your house or bedroom.
Ah, I should not have starting talking about "homes" as most American's begin imagining boogeymen with guns inside their houses.
I was mostly thinking of the concept as everyone seems to extends to their yards.
Because we're talking about drones. Obviously drones aren't inside your house. We're talking about your yards.
IE: it's not the people who have kicked in doors whom I'm concerned about, it's the innocent people walking up to the door to knock or the lost person passing through a backyard - way too many people who consider shooting them as "justified" just because they were scared or didn't recognize them.
> of my poorly educated gun nut friends
Heck - I have WELL educated friends who think this way.
Oddly enough these same people can't possibly put themselves in the shoes of the accidental victims, they're so paranoid about their personal right to use lethal force to defend themselves -- and of course they NEVER consider their own beliefs and demands as contributing to all the people who are shot accidentally or unjustifiably. THEY haven't personally done that (yet), so obviously it's not their damn problem. etc.
> There is a difference between viewing the license plate of the vechicle in front of you and recording all license plates everywhere, building vast databases of the movement patterns of all vechicles.
But they're doing exactly that right now! It's just not as visible as a plane in the sky -- so no one cares.
LITERALLY, LAPD currently has this system and this database in place. It was in the papers *once*, 6 months ago.
NOBODY has said a WORD about it.
But airplanes in the sky? Freakout city.
So camera in your hand is ok? What if you jump while taking the picture? How about a camera in a kite? It's technically connected to the ground or the wind would blow it away. How about a helicopter that drops a line to the ground? The burden of the weight of the line is lessened by the amount that is lying on the ground..
I can agree with New Hampshire's proposed restriction on "private residence", that's a concern I've had about camera-armed private drones myself, as it would cover such privacy issues as people sun bathing nude or engaged in other private activities at poolside behind secure privacy fencing. but ANY private property, yeah, I think that goes too far. And I am a Texan, but wouldn't support this regulation.
Psst, and being white doesn't stop you from being a racist. It neither stops you from being self hating nor does it stop you from thinking you are "one of the good ones" and "a credit to your race". If you were not so much of a racist, you would realize that the reason we didn't bomb Russia directly was not because they were white, but because they could fight back. It is the same reason we will bomb Afghanistan but not China. You are simply to blinded by racism to see that.
Of course, I do not expect you to recognize your racism. Racists rarely do. If they did there wouldn't be so many of them.
Ah, I should not have starting talking about "homes" as most American's begin imagining boogeymen with guns inside their houses.
I was mostly thinking of the concept as everyone seems to extends to their yards.
Because we're talking about drones. Obviously drones aren't inside your house. We're talking about your yards.
So, basically, what you're saying here is that you think it's perfectly OK for you to be on another person's property without permission, so long as you're not inside their house?
Fine then - go stand in your neighbors back yard, and refuse to leave when asked. You'll find out who's in the wrong real fuckin' quick, and I guarantee it won't be your neighbor who gets taken to the pokey and charged with trespassing.
IE: it's not the people who have kicked in doors whom I'm concerned about, it's the innocent people walking up to the door to knock or the lost person passing through a backyard - way too many people who consider shooting them as "justified" just because they were scared or didn't recognize them.
Assuming we're talking about a state with "stand your ground" or "castle" laws, the trespasser must be presenting some sort of physical threat to life or property before deadly force is considered a reasonable action. If you're going to contend that there are "way too many people" who don't understand that aspect of the law, you damn well better have a plethora of source citations to back you up. Otherwise, way too many people will realize you're yet another plebe with an agenda, talking out of your ass.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yes, they recently had a case in TX where someone revealed a violation by using a drone.
Only in Texas, "Let's make enforcing the law illegal!!!"
And those who propose such laws are the enemy of all freedom-loving people.
Fuck these idiots.
The time will come when their higher use is for target practice.
From the source article:
"But Texas legislators are apparently quite concerned that private citizens operating hobby drones might spot environmental violations by businesses. You may recall the story from 2012 in which a hobbyist operating a small UAV over public land in Dallas, TX accidentally photographed a Dallas meat-packing plant illegally dumping pig blood into the Trinity river, resulting in an EPA indictment. Representative Lance Gooden has introduced HB912 to solve this "problem"
How exactly did the authors arrive at the conclusion that this bill was introduced for anti-evironmentalist reasons? No justification, just some "well I'll bet this is why" dressed up as journalism. Little better than a conspiracy theory. But hey, it's an article talking about how stupid Texas is, fuck it, we'll let it slide.
Kali-for-nia has Arnold!
This legislation is terrible, but it at least allows what you describe because it is not 'unmanned'. I didn't read the article, but every quote in the summary used the word 'unmanned' related to forbidden photography.
"Can you foresee any unintended consequences if this proposal becomes law?""
Can you fore see any unintended consequences of drone use period?
Anything that protects privacy and property rights is a good thing. Get on board or run into a knife.
use of infrarred takes and cameras (process) to uncover torture chambers, kidnappings, clandestine cemeteries, massacres, etc!!!!! WHO FROGOT? It is the naturall use for technology! Basically, since the technology itself can protect privacy to all people concerned... and avoid all those unpleasantries! Much to the pain of WHO the color of excrement and concomitant associates? Danilo J Bonsignore
They would be unable to use dogs for sniffing, incidentally.... So what are they afraid of? Someone would bring out the dungeon with some autoseeking cameras? What about my girl if she went in there? We can actually do the same with just computers and any data! No data mining. Mental image. It is a non problem but they have to define a Casuistic, no doubt. djb
1) I am on the ground with my radio when I fly, and my quad cannot fly without radio contact, so as long as I don't jump into the air while flying it is always supported from the ground. 2) Free flying is fun, but just as with any other camera work for good camera shots you plan your location. This means that a majority of the time having a tether (a long piece of string will do unless they make kites illegal) is totally feasible for aerial photography. Also, IANAL, but I believe there is existing law that states things viewable by the public can be photographed. This is why Google can have Street View, and the reason I can take a picture of a sunset without attaining the permission of every property owner from where I am standing West to the horizon. This is the equivalent to saying you can't own a tripod higher than two feet, and cannot hold it above knee level. Also, tracking down every person that takes a photo from the window of an airplane that may include parts of either state may prove to be difficult.
DId not see down to the letter level the text... ! So you cannot hand a dog to form an image with his nose of the place odour landscape! But... what if it is a JUMPING thing? It just cannot stay in the air! So maybe we substitute our dogs with kangaroos! Or not?