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."
So what, will entire states just be blacked out of satellite view?
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.
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 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
Nope. SCOTUS has ruled that if you can see it in public then it's OK to photograph. The problem the EFF has with drones is the use of continuous surveillance of an individual constituting a search.
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.
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"
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
Just like evolutional theory.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
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!
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.
No, it is to stop things like this: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/12/26/columbia-packing-owner-indicted-for-pig-blood-pollution/ All to protect corporations.
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
I really hate people who automatically associate intelligence with political alignment. Google "non sequitur."
Relax, corporations are people in nearly every way. They just can't vote. But to compensate for it, they decide who we get to vote on.
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..
Course, existing peeping tom laws already protect you from the paparazzi taking pictures of you in an area that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
Except that, with the accuracy of Apple Maps, you ask them to black out Texas, and it'll be New Jersey that disappears off the maps!
I fail to see this as a bad thing.
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).
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.
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.
You own the land not the air and space above it.
No, I'm pretty sure you do own the airspace above your land up to a certain altitude, but you certainly don't own the airspace adjacent to your property, which is what this bill seems to be aimed at... If you don't want stray photons incriminating you, don't release them into adjacent areas.
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.
in Texas it is a crime to report a crime!
God those people are so f*ed up it is just amazing.
Pollution leaking into a river will inevitable cross property lines. It is also pollution in the drinking water. Thus affects everyone.
I may agree with you on some things, but I have to say I do not agree with you concerning the pollution. It is one thing if it was a mistake, but you could even see the blood in the river from google maps:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/01/dallas-river-turns-red-hog-blood/1042/
That is well beyond any sort of innocent error. I am all for punishing people that seriously violate environmental laws.
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.
The Texas bill is specifically in response to a hobbyist model plane with video camera catching this slaughterhouse polluting a Texas river. I find it infuriating that the response of a politician to a polluter being caught isn't to ask the local EPA to more tightly monitor likely offenders but to criminalize the act of reporting the pollution!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.