Drone Camera Tornado Coverage Raises Press Freedom Questions

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Drone Camera Tornado Coverage Raises Press Freedom Questions

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 1, 2014 @02:13AM from the you-may-only-look-toward-the-horizon dept.

retroworks (652802) writes "In the latest tornado and storm tragedy to hit the U.S.'s south and midwest, small drone cameras steered by storm-tracker and videographer Brian Emfinger gathered stunning bird's-eye footage of the wreckage. Forbes magazine covers the [paywalled] Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's speculation that Emfinger has violated FAA rules which prohibit commercial use of small drones. The laws, designed years ago to restrict hobbyists use of model airplanes, may conflict with U.S. First Amendment free press use. So far, nothing in the article says that the FAA is enforcing the rule on the media outlets that may pay Emfinger for his video coverage, but interest in the footage will probably create a business economy for future commercial drone use if the FAA does not act."

97 of 143 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It depends on the hat you're wearing by i+kan+reed · 2014-05-01 02:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

The difference between taking a video with a drone and posting it on youtube, and a reporter taking a video and showing in a news report is essentially zero.
1. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-01 02:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Wasn't there a case recently that decided bloggers were functionally identical to official journalists in regards to freedom of the press? (aside from that detail being obvious with the quality of the news these days)
  Still, freedom of the press does not mean that they can get away with arbitrarily breaking laws. A press pass does not mean the cop cannot give you a ticket for going 174 in a 35 zone, and it should have no bearing here. Either the FAA enforces its rules here, or it forfeits the authority to oppress hobbyists RC aircraft owners.
2. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by telchine · 2014-05-01 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  When you wear the presidential hat, nothing you do is ever illegal.
  Yeah, but Abraham Lincoln did that and it didn't turn out too well.
3. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by Nyder · 2014-05-01 02:39 · Score: 2
  
  When you wear the presidential hat, nothing you do is ever illegal.
  Yeah, but Abraham Lincoln did that and it didn't turn out too well.
  If you recall, Lincoln was shot a theater and it's normal to remove your hats while attending theaters.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
4. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by i+kan+reed · 2014-05-01 02:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, tell that to both William Jefferson Clinton and Andrew Jackson, who were brought up on charges during their presidency(even if in the former case it was a pathetic blow-up of an adultery scandal).
  Oh, and Richard Nixon, who had to be pardoned by his stool pigeon replacement.
5. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by msauve · 2014-05-01 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  Huh? Jerry Ford was an informant? About what, and who'd he snitch on?
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
6. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by Chrisq · 2014-05-01 03:01 · Score: 2
  
  When you wear the presidential hat, nothing you do is ever illegal.
  Yeah, but Abraham Lincoln did that and it didn't turn out too well.
  If you recall, Lincoln was shot a theater and it's normal to remove your hats while attending theaters.
  Is getting shot illegal?
7. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by telchine · 2014-05-01 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  If you recall, Lincoln was shot a theater
  No, I don't recall! How old do you think I am?!
8. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by timeOday · 2014-05-01 03:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There are only so many people with press passes. I think a valid concern is that there will simply be too many drones buzzing around disaster areas, creating hazards for rescue operations (especially helicopters and planes). Beyond the vicinity of airports, aircraft traffic has largely been handled by "everybody keep your eyes peeled and don't hit each other, mmmmkay?" But that is going to break down in the near future if there is a big increase in the number of aircraft, particularly small ones that can't be seen for a long distance.
9. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by westlake · 2014-05-01 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  The difference between taking a video with a drone and posting it on youtube, and a reporter taking a video and showing in a news report is essentially zero.
  The difference lies in commercial sale and distribution.
  The Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination was captured quite by chance by a man with an 8mm camera.
  
  On the morning of November 23, CBS lost the bidding for the footage to Life magazine's $150,000 offer.
  Zapruder film
  That is $1,127,000, adjusted for inflation.
  It is the business of the pro to get the "money shot," whatever the event he is covering.
10. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by BitZtream · 2014-05-01 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  No, it isn't, and your ignorance is why there are rules to prevent people from doing it.
  Fewer morons who know nothing about what they are doing will do it if it cost them $500 and they can't make any money.
  Make it so you can make a quick buck on it and it'll bring out a bunch of morons with no clue what the risks are endangering peoples lives.
  The difference is staggering, but your short sighted viewpoint is pretty much the core problem. You think you know a lot more than you actually do.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
11. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by i+kan+reed · 2014-05-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  There's no denying that proximity to power affords substantial unwarranted protection, but that isn't equivalent to immunity.
  Also, for the more historically inclined: I confused Jackson(a douchebag who committed genocide) with Johnson(a guy who didn't obey congress)
12. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by i+kan+reed · 2014-05-01 03:52 · Score: 2
  
  I hereby acknowledge my incorrect usage of the term. Swap in "shill" instead?
13. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by QuantumPion · 2014-05-01 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair. Clinton was impeached for pressuring a subordinate intern for sexual favors, lying in court, and pressuring witnesses to lie in court.
14. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by Bengie · 2014-05-01 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pro-vax, I get my shots, hat or not.
15. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by i+kan+reed · 2014-05-01 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even begin to deny the abuse of power that represents. But unfortunately, when Lewinsky refused to press the case, all they could do was blow up the scandal on technicalities.
16. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by wonkey_monkey · 2014-05-01 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  Since you don't recall, Lincoln therefore wasn't shot in a theatre.
  Logic, that.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
17. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by nsuccorso · 2014-05-01 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  You're guilty of grand theft auto, murdering a nun, and child abuse. However, your crimes are concealed well enough that I don't have any actual proof. Lucky you!
18. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-01 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair. Clinton was impeached for pressuring a subordinate intern for sexual favors, lying in court, and pressuring witnesses to lie in court.
  2 out of 3 isn't bad.
  
  It was very clearly and convincingly shown that Monica Lewinsky had worked long and hard to get in the President's pants, not the other way around.
19. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by jklovanc · 2014-05-01 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  The difference between taking a video with a drone and posting it on youtube, and a reporter taking a video and showing in a news report is essentially zero.
  True but that is also different than a couple hundred reporters/bloggers flying drones over a disaster area trying to get the story and interfering with the actual rescue effort. If drones were officially allowed every news organization would have at least one and would want to use it on a big story. We already have a similar issue with helicopters that are very expensive to use. Bring that cost way down and the use will explode.
  That is the issue with commercial droned. They are very inexpensive and many companies will want to use them in the same airspace. That will cause issues and the FAA has not figured out how to deal with them yet.
20. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by QuantumPion · 2014-05-01 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  You are confused. Monica Lewinsky was the witness to attest that Clinton did garner sexual favors from interns. The sexual harassment suit was by Paula Jones, whom was NOT willing to give sexual favors and thought that her boss making such advances was a highly hostile work environment.
21. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by QuantumPion · 2014-05-01 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Lewinsky wasn't the one charging sexual harassment. She was a willing participant, but was the witness to attest for the person whom was unwillingly harassed, Paula Jones. The case didn't "blow up on technicalities", Clinton was found guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury, and settled the case w/ Paula Jones. The House impeached Clinton but the Democrat controlled senate refused to convict.
22. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-01 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  Wasn't there a case recently that decided bloggers were functionally identical to official journalists in regards to freedom of the press? (aside from that detail being obvious with the quality of the news these days)
  As AC replies: what the court confirmed is that you ARE the press. All you need is a printing press (or a blog), and you're a journalist. There is no such thing as an "official", government-approved journalist. I think it's pretty easy to see what a dangerous road that would be.
  
  Having said that, though, I have my own question:
  
  Has everybody here forgotten about the very recent Federal court decision saying that the FAA is full of shit, and that their regulations do not cover citizen-operated remote control aircraft? It was just a couple of weeks ago.
23. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by i+kan+reed · 2014-05-01 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  A. I don't think you know what "found guilty" means.
  B. That is a technicality of the case.
24. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-01 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  You are confused. Monica Lewinsky was the witness to attest that Clinton did garner sexual favors from interns.
  I am not confused. Subsequent investigation showed quite clearly that Lewinsky had schemed to get into Clinton's pants for at least two years prior to it actually happening. There are documents and eyewiteness accounts from her friends. She even complained at one point she was frustrated that she couldn't get him to have sex... all she had managed to talk him into was a blowjob.
  
  What, you think lying on the stand is something new?
25. Re:It depends on the hat you're wearing by Scarletdown · 2014-05-01 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  If you recall, Lincoln was shot a theater
  No, I don't recall! How old do you think I am?!
  I have no idea, but you look like a million.
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
News helicopters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-01 02:16 · Score: 1

News helicopters have to follow FAA rules.
1. Re:News helicopters by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-01 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because they're standard-size helicopters, not teeny tiny RC models.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:News helicopters by beelsebob · 2014-05-01 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The point being made is that just because they have to follow FAA rules, does not mean that their first amendment rights are being violated. You're not allowed to fly big human carrying helicopters over there without the appropriate paperwork filed, and that doesn't violate your first amendment right. Similarly, meeting the right conditions to fly a drone does not violate them either.
3. Re:News helicopters by msauve · 2014-05-01 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  Of course, flying a drone isn't Interstate Commerce, either - even if you sell footage to the local news.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
4. Re:News helicopters by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-01 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Would flying a drone be interstate commerce even if you sold the video, which has nothing to do with the act of flying, to non-local news?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:News helicopters by msauve · 2014-05-01 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? The act of flying was necessary to gather the video in question. But yes, whether obtained by flying an RC plane or taken by hand, selling it out-of-state would be interstate commerce. Of course, any powers the Feds might have to regulate that would be constrained by the 1st A.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
6. Re:News helicopters by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-01 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  You make it sound like selling a video captured using a Chinese RC model would be interstate commerce, merely because the model airplane was imported.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
7. Re:News helicopters by LWATCDR · 2014-05-01 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. A news crew can not fly a VFR equipped airplane in IFR conditions, the can not fly an aircraft at FL1 at 300 nmph, they not fly an unregistered airplane, they can not pay a pilot to fly for them that does not have a commercial license.
  How is the drone rule any different than these rules legally.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
8. Re:News helicopters by msauve · 2014-05-01 03:59 · Score: 2
  
  Read Wickard v Filburn, if you really want to see a stretch - the Feds think growing your own food is interstate commerce.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
9. Re:News helicopters by bigpat · 2014-05-01 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  The issue here is the FAA is issuing rules not based on common rules for safely operating a small remote controlled aircraft, but based on whether or not the operator on the ground is getting compensated for his work. The FAA should issue safety regulations not restrict freedom of movement just so it can figure out ways to make more money for the government off of the commercial use of the airspace. The whole thing seems like an inherently corrupt way for the FAA to be operating.
  For the most part these micro UAVs are too small to be much of any hazard and it seems that you would have to be either reckless or intend to cause harm to be of any trouble with a micro UAV in which case FAA regulations would be pretty meaningless anyway.
  Like I said, this whole UAV regulation thing at least as it applies to very small UAVs seems like more of a shakedown than a proper exercise of government regulations
10. Re:News helicopters by MachineShedFred · 2014-05-01 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  This was exactly what I was thinking. Does denying some reporter an FAA license to fly a helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft anywhere they please for purposes of journalism constitute a First Amendment violation now?
  What happens when they want to fly in restricted airspace? Is that a civil rights issue?
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
11. Re:News helicopters by Obfuscant · 2014-05-01 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  The issue here is the FAA is issuing rules not based on common rules for safely operating a small remote controlled aircraft, but based on whether or not the operator on the ground is getting compensated for his work.
  The FAA has TONS of rules that are based on whether the pilot is being compensated for his work. That pilot you give $100 to for dumping your Uncle Ed's ashes out over the local forest he loved to hike and hunt in has a lot of rules that apply to him that do not apply to Joe Weekend Flyer.
  
  The FAA should issue safety regulations not restrict freedom of movement just so it can figure out ways to make more money for the government off of the commercial use of the airspace.
  What are you ranting about? Do you realize how little you have to pay the government to be a commercial-rated pilot? Do you think the FAA runs schools that they want to force prospective pilots through? Don't be silly. They don't even do most of the commercial check rides anymore.
  
  For the most part these micro UAVs are too small to be much of any hazard
  
  Right. Except to people in the vicinity. And any small aircraft that hits one.
  
  Like I said, this whole UAV regulation thing at least as it applies to very small UAVs seems like more of a shakedown
  
  Yeah, a shakedown that the government doesn't make any money from. Try again.
12. Re:News helicopters by Obfuscant · 2014-05-01 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  What happens when they want to fly in restricted airspace? Is that a civil rights issue?
  If the President for whom the TFR is being created is white and the reporter who wants to jump into a Cessna 172 to get some nifty aerial shots of him is black, yes. Of course.
13. Re:News helicopters by bigpat · 2014-05-01 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Government usually doesn't make money from a regulatory shakedown, corrupt individuals do when they take bribes to circumvent the rules they made and enforce and/or they make money when they leave government to go into private industry and are rewarded for their "service" and their knowledge of how to make money in and around the corrupt system they helped create.
  When a rule is purely based on commercial use and has absolutely no safety justification, not even a remotely reasonable one, then yes I think an accusation of blatant corruption is appropriate and likely.
  We are talking about for the most part glorified toys that any 13 year old can buy at the mall and take home and fly around. To prevent news organizations from using those same toys to take pictures from the air or to prohibit any other intended commercial use of aerial photography is about as perverse a use of regulatory authority as I've ever seen and does cross a line the FAA had never crossed before.
  The judge was right to throw out that rule and I hope the FAA will just drop that particular rule altogether rather than try and rewrite it.
14. Re:News helicopters by Obfuscant · 2014-05-01 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  We are talking about for the most part glorified toys that any 13 year old can buy at the mall and take home and fly around.
  
  Don't be ridiculous. Those toys can't carry anything more than a few fleas and they stay aloft for a few minutes at most. If you can get them up higher than ten feet they'll be blown away by the wind. We're talking about commercial drones that have a payload capacity sufficient for professional grade cameras (at least prosumer grade), and a flight time of twenty minutes or more.
  
  To prevent news organizations from using those same toys to take pictures from the air
  
  The laws of physics prevent news organizations from using those toys to take pictures from the air, not the FAA.
  
  or to prohibit any other intended commercial use of aerial photography is about as perverse a use of regulatory authority as I've ever seen and does cross a line the FAA had never crossed before.
  Don't be ridiculous. The FAA has firm justification and long precedent for regulations regarding commercial use of airspace, for both the pilots and aircraft involved. That pilot who took you up for a joyride yesterday will have different rules applying to him when you ask him to fly you somewhere for pay, and that aircraft he took you up in for fun will have more requirements when you're paying for the trip.
  You just don't know what you're talking about here.
Just think of all the damage by hsmith · 2014-05-01 02:18 · Score: 5, Funny

The drone could have done if it crashed while filming a tornado. The deviation would be catastrophic
1. Re:Just think of all the damage by Charliemopps · 2014-05-01 02:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09...
  I suspect that all it will take is some paparazzi crashing their drone into some famous persons house (you know, someone whos opinion the government actually cares about) and they'll link that story to story to the one above and "I could have been killed!" yada yada and drones will be banned for civilian use to protect our movie stars. You know it's only a matter of time.
2. Re:Just think of all the damage by meta-monkey · 2014-05-01 03:09 · Score: 2
  
  You are correct, except I think it'll be a politician. They'll pass a bill that it's perfectly fine for law enforcement drones to spy on us, but that we serfs shalt not use drones to report on our betters.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
3. Re:Just think of all the damage by StripedCow · 2014-05-01 03:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Take this one step further: it's only a matter of time before drones will be used by terrorists...
  The future of drones doesn't look bright.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Storm chasers and drones by OzPeter · 2014-05-01 02:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Has any storm chaser captured video when deliberately flying a drone INTO a tornado? Now that would be a sight t see!

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
1. Re:Storm chasers and drones by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-01 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Just leave an inflated ball with a few cameras inside lying in its path. Much better that way, if nausea is what you're looking for in the video. ;-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:Storm chasers and drones by Russ1642 · 2014-05-01 02:34 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Leaving something in the path of a tornado is very very very difficult. There was a documentary about doing that called Twister.
3. Re:Storm chasers and drones by CanHasDIY · 2014-05-01 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Leaving something in the path of a tornado is very very very difficult.
  Flying a, what, 20 lb toy directly into a natural phenomena that produces rotating winds of between 75 - 350 Mph is and even less tenable proposition. You'd be better off with the inflatable ball, as you might get lucky and have it swept up into the twister, presuming it's deployed close enough. Or maybe drop it from an over-flying aircraft.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:Storm chasers and drones by Charliemopps · 2014-05-01 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Right, and its totally safe in the "Eye" of the tornado. As long as you keep pace with it, you'll remain unscathed!
5. Re:Storm chasers and drones by beelsebob · 2014-05-01 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's likely that the best approach is actually a combination of the two – use a drone to position your camera in the path of the tornado. Then you don't have the usual problem of it being *really* dangerous to try and position the cameras there.
6. Re:Storm chasers and drones by Anomalyst · 2014-05-01 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  He's probably the other one who saw idiocracy too
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
7. Re:Storm chasers and drones by CanHasDIY · 2014-05-01 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's likely that the best approach is actually a combination of the two – use a drone to position your camera in the path of the tornado. Then you don't have the usual problem of it being *really* dangerous to try and position the cameras there.
  Aw, but the danger is half the fun of storm-chasing!
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
IOW, the newspaper is defending their turf by Huntr · 2014-05-01 02:21 · Score: 2

They don't want to pay him for the footage & don't want others to have the footage.
Champions of Freedom and the 1A, right there.
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-01 02:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

The laws, designed years ago to restrict hobbyists use of model airplanes, may conflict with U.S. First Amendment free press use.
This makes no sense.
Yes, the press has freedom, which means they can't be restricted by government in what they report.
They do not, however, have carte blanche to ignore laws and safety regulations.
Being told you're not allowed to operate a drone for commercial purposes doesn't mean your press freedom is being restricted. It means you cannot operate a drone for commercial purposes due to safety regulations.
Has America completely lost its grasp of the difference between what you're "free" to do, and what is (and should be) regulated?
I keep hearing conservatives whine about how their freedom of speech is being infringed because there are consequences to the shit they say.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. You're free to say it, but if the customers basically say "we're not buying your product" they're not cutting of your free speech, they're exercising yours. (Especially (mo|i)ronic since the conservatives are the first to call for boycotts and shouting down people who disagree with them.)
The press bitching they can't do illegal things in the pursuit of news (which these days is whatever is most salacious to get ratings) is the same thing -- your press freedom doesn't supercede laws. You also can't commit murder, break traffic laws, kidnap, of commit a break and enter.
1. Re:What? by Mr+D+from+63 · 2014-05-01 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  ^That about sums it up.
  
  Maybe some folks need to have a plane hit a drone and result in some real death before they get it.
2. Re:What? by MightyYar · 2014-05-01 02:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Has America completely lost its grasp of the difference between what you're "free" to do, and what is (and should be) regulated?
  Many Americans have a skeptical view of authority, and I think that it is justified. For every regulation implemented for our safety, there are a handful of jackasses abusing the situation. Drone flights during rescue operations may very well be a hazard, and banning them during such operations probably has some merit. On the other hand, whatever law is in place to enact such a ban will invariably be abused to prevent someone from seeing "something they shouldn't" in the judgement of some bureaucrat.
  We see this all the time with some of these insane penalties for computer crimes that are inflicted on well-meaning hackers. Even when they end up causing some grief, we throw penalties at them which are meant for organized crime, large-scale financial fraud, and terrorism.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
3. Re:What? by v1 · 2014-05-01 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  They do not, however, have carte blanche to ignore laws and safety regulations.
  I believe the "regulation" aspect right now is simply about the numbers. When you have a handful of amateurs flying quads around their local park or around their back yard or neighborhood, the risks of collision are minimal and the scope of the damage limited. Once it becomes profitable, you can get a sudden, substantial increase in risks to the public.
  Right now there are already quite a few people using quadrocopters etc for commercial purposes. Probably the biggest group at this time are the realtors, that hire professional photographers to get pictures of properties for sale. Many of these photographers use quads to get good aereal shots of the house and surrounding property. I think these are being overlooked by the FAA because they don't tend to concentrate and raise the risk of a collision. The photographers are also flying expensive cameras, and don't want to crater their $2,500 camera let alon their $350 quad. Also they're used casually, with no time pressure, so they can concentrate on their flying. Odds are also very good that anyone below hears them and is stopping to watch, and would be much better prepared to take cover should there be a loss of control.
  On the other hand, there's a very plausible risk of collisions and damage/injury when you have a papparazzi-ish fervered group of reporters trying to get coverage on a public event. I could see a dozen or more quads zipping around trying to get fleeting unique video, while flying above crowds of people that are NOT paying any attention to any potential danger above. High concentration of aircraft, operators with priorities over safety, concentrated public, and public not paying attention to them. I suspect that is the sort of thing the FAA wants to keep a close eye on, not the "random quad flying solo through the city with a camera onboard." The current regulations simply don't make the necessary distinctin between the different types of commercial use at this point, so they're "selectively enforcing", as is to be expected. If anything, I think the press should have specific additional regulation in certain circumstances, where it's not a case of "protecting the fredom of the press" but is more a case of "protecting the public from reckless reporters".
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
4. Re:What? by tomhath · 2014-05-01 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Different rules apply. Same as civilian aircraft are regulated differently than commercial or CDL drivers license versus non-commercial.
5. Re:What? by MightyYar · 2014-05-01 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  They are already doing it.
  Like I said, our cynicism is justified.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
6. Re:What? by stenvar · 2014-05-01 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Being told you're not allowed to operate a drone for commercial purposes doesn't mean your press freedom is being restricted. It means you cannot operate a drone for commercial purposes due to safety regulations.
  If you can do it for non-commercial purposes but not for commercial purposes, that shows that it isn't "due to safety regulations".
  
  Has America completely lost its grasp of the difference between what you're "free" to do, and what is (and should be) regulated?
  The federal government has only authority to regulate interstate commerce. Is flying drones into a tornado related to interstate commerce? No. Hence it should not a federal government issue. Furthermore, prohibiting this activity isn't just working out the details of some law (which is what regulators are supposed to do), it's an entirely new restriction that should require an act of Congress.
  
  The press bitching they can't do illegal things in the pursuit of news (which these days is whatever is most salacious to get ratings) is the same thing -- your press freedom doesn't supercede laws.
  Regulations are not the same thing as laws. Yes, people should complain when unelected federal bureaucrats decide for no good reason to restrict what Americans can do.
  
  I keep hearing conservatives whine about how their freedom of speech is being infringed because there are consequences to the shit they say.
  Are they proposing laws against those consequences? No. They are merely exercising their right to free speech in response to other people exercising their right to free speech. That's how free speech works.
  You seem to have trouble understanding what free speech means, and you seem to have trouble understanding the basics of government. More disconcerting, you seem to be ignorant of history and how government restrictions on press and free speech have always been justified with "public safety". It's good to see that Americans aren't quite as ignorant and complacent as you seem to be.
7. Re:What? by MrTester · 2014-05-01 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Judging from many of the earlier posts it seems that what many Slashdot readers have lost a grasp on is the difference between the FAA and the FCC. Whether its a knowledge deficiency or a failure in Reading-for-Information I dont know.
8. Re:What? by MightyYar · 2014-05-01 04:36 · Score: 1
  I find people seem much more rational if you:
  
  Avoid "wedge issues". Even those that I feel strongly about don't really make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
  Approach politics with people as if you were discussing sports. You wouldn't start out a friendly bar discussion with a Jets fan by saying, "Man, the Jest just SUCK!" and the same is true with political fans.
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Commercial Versus Free by Bob9113 · 2014-05-01 02:34 · Score: 2

speculation that Emfinger has violated FAA rules which prohibit commercial use of small drones. The laws, designed years ago to restrict hobbyists use of model airplanes, may conflict with U.S. First Amendment free press use.
There is a pretty obvious difference between the right of press freedom and commercial use of drones; the commercial part. If the drone operator is getting paid, or under contract, or in any other compensatory relationship with the publisher, it is commercial use of a drone. If he is a hobbyist who happens to catch some interesting footage and lets the news media use it for free, it is non-commercial use. Commercial operation of drones is prohibited. The press is free to report on the footage, and free to display it if they can do so without violating commercial drone operation regulations.
It strikes me the same as attempts to conflate advertising and commercial lobbying with free speech. Compulsory speech -- speech which you are obligated to make under the terms of a business relationship -- is not free speech. Trade is not protected speech. You have a natural right to express your views, but you do not have a natural right to pay others on the condition that they say what you tell them to say.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
1. Re:Commercial Versus Free by Sockatume · 2014-05-01 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Are there areas where the "press freedom" rule trumps the laws that affect the ordinary public?
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:Commercial Versus Free by msauve · 2014-05-01 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  So, when a newspaper pays a printer to print their words - that's not protected speech? When CNN pays their anchors for reporting, that's not protected speech?
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
It is not illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-01 02:34 · Score: 3, Informative

A judge invalidated the law not too long ago so there is no legal issue. http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/6/5479582/judge-rules-commercial-drones-are-legal-undoing-six-year-ban
1. Re:It is not illegal by BitZtream · 2014-05-01 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, he didn't invalidate the law. That article headline is worse than most slashdot headlines, and when you use the verge are your reference, you're wrong from the start.
  The judge ruled that the interpretation was too ambiguous to apply as it was written. That doesn't invalidate it, it just puts them back in court at a later date with a modified argument.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
2. Re:It is not illegal by jklovanc · 2014-05-01 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  The FAA appealed and the decision is not in effect.
Bunk by synapse7 · 2014-05-01 02:36 · Score: 1

I'm fairly certain there was already a Federal ruling on using drones for commercial purposes and the FAA lost. Maybe somebody can find the source..
1. Re:Bunk by synapse7 · 2014-05-01 02:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Looks like the FAA appealed the decision on March 7th.
  http://www.faa.gov/news/press_...
2. Re:Bunk by Stele · 2014-05-01 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  Interesting article over at the FAA concerning drones:
  http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240
Expect complaint to FAA in 3, 2, 1... by advocate_one · 2014-05-01 02:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

from private pilots operating small planes and helicopters as drones are stealing their "business" opportunities...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
1. Re:Expect complaint to FAA in 3, 2, 1... by cdrudge · 2014-05-01 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Do small planes and helicopters often attempt to fly over tornadoes? I would imagine that any type of plane, private or commercial, would actively avoid any type of storm cell that could or is producing tornadoes.
2. Re:Expect complaint to FAA in 3, 2, 1... by Gavagai80 · 2014-05-01 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  First complainant is automatically volunteered for the business opportunity of flying a helicopter into a tornado.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
3. Re:Expect complaint to FAA in 3, 2, 1... by LWATCDR · 2014-05-01 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  A. Drones outside of those owned by NASA and NOAA do not fly over tornadoes. You are usually talking about above FL40 to fly over storm/tornado.
  B. These drones were taking pictures of damage after the storm not during.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
4. Re:Expect complaint to FAA in 3, 2, 1... by Isca · 2014-05-01 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  There's only one incident known:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLM_Cityhopper_Flight_431
Rights are not absolute.. by QuietLagoon · 2014-05-01 02:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Freedom of the Press is not an absolute right. If it were absolute, then a reporter could break into my house anytime he wanted in order to get a news story.
.
Only when this case makes it to the Supreme Court will we know whether drone usage in these types of cases are legal. Until then, there will be lots of discussion.
rule of law? by Revek · 2014-05-01 02:56 · Score: 1

or the law of rules. In those halcyon days of old, when a new tech came along, the government rightfully ignored it. When the tech started to cause problems or started to make serious money they would step in and make sure that the interest of the 'people' were regulated. Now we have tons of unregulated business models and fewer unregulated personal freedoms.
Question by CanHasDIY · 2014-05-01 02:59 · Score: 1

Please forgive my ignorance, but the laws governing RC aircraft basically consist of a flight ceiling and line-of-sight requirement, right? I.e., 'keep the thing below X feet and make sure you can see it?'
Presuming that's the case, and knowing that there are crap-tons of fire towers in the region, do you think it would be legal to stand atop one of the (normally 60-100 feet tall in this part of the world) and pilot the craft from there? You'd have a helluva sight range that way.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
1. Re:Question by BitZtream · 2014-05-01 03:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No.
  The rules are (short version of legalese)
  Fly by line of sight. (They get too small to fly more than a mile away)
  Stay below 400 feet AGL ... ABSOLUTE GROUND LEVEL, the distance between the aircraft and the ground below it must be less than 400 feet, not operator level.
  No commercial use (this was added in 2007 to prevent a maelstrom of idiots with RC planes doing shit for money, and is the main arguing point right now)
  Do not fly within X number of feet of buildings or Y number of feet of people. I forget the specifics of X and Y right now.
  Do not fly within 5 miles of an active airport or helipad, where active is defined as shows up on sectional charts as 'open', regardless of the actual usage of the airport or its size.
  and a bunch of other more obscure and less likely to apply rules.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
2. Re:Question by CanHasDIY · 2014-05-01 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the info, I was hoping someone in the know would come and dispel my ignorance.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
3. Re:Question by jklovanc · 2014-05-01 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Do not fly within 5 miles of an active airport or helipad,
  Here is the actual circular;
  
  Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station.
  You can fly close to an airport but you have to tell them. There are many RC clubs that fly from unused runways at open airports.
Disasters by mbone · 2014-05-01 03:04 · Score: 1

Many rules are ignored / not enforced in disaster areas. This can go both ways - for example, your freedom of movement may be blocked by police enforcing evacuations, but the people looking for survivors generally don't worry much about one way streets or the laws of trespass. (And, yes, this certainly includes commercial activities, such as insurance adjusters.)
My guess is that the FAA will ignore this, as long as it doesn't cause problems or get egregious.
And the issue is? by IgnitusBoyone · 2014-05-01 03:05 · Score: 1

I fail to see the issue.
People have a very strange def of freedom of speech, which was originally intended to allow printed press to be delivered with out consequence or government oversight. The inability to legally fly drones does not prevent you from capturing footage by the commonly use news helicopters or placing your camera on a boom and pushing it over a fence.
This is like saying trespassing laws violate freedom of speech or maybe locks. I mean those pesky locks. What about all those barricades on military bases. Lets faces it nothing in our government provides you unlimited access to any place just because your curious. On the other hand its almost impossible to punish you for reporting on your random thoughts on what is behind those closed doors.

--
Momento Mori
wtf? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-01 03:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

The difference between you catching a fish and cooking it for dinner, and a commercial trawler catching the fish and selling it to a supermarket works out about the same way. Around here (for Pacific salmon at certain times), sport fishing is legal, commercial fishing is not.
The difference between you picking some wildflowers in a hiking park and putting them in your hair, and some corporation sending squads of migrant laborers to pick all the flowers in the park and sell them to florists... same thing.
Videotape a movie from television and watch it again later, or even give a copy to a friend: ok at least morally, by Slashdot standards. Rebroadcast it on your own commercial TV station with ads that you've sold: hello lawsuit.
Micropower noncommercial FM broadcasting: OK some of the time, depending on which way the wind is blowing. Sell ads: need FCC license and spectrum allocation.
Fucking glibertarians, it really does make a difference why you do something. Activities which are benign if done occasionally but destructive if done on large scale, and for which there isn't much motivation other than profit for doing at scale, can be handled most non-interferingly(?) by eliminating the profit potential and saying it's ok to do it for personal use only. Some hobbyist flying a drone around isn't likely to interfere with aviation or cause massive privacy invasion. Millions of corporate and government drones: not so much. Forget news media: are you ready for a Google drone over your neighborhood 24/7?
Simplest way to handle the "free speech" issue might be just declare any broadcasts of drone video by news media to be in the public domain immediately. Eliminating the copyright would kill a lot of the commercial value, while leaving it possible to broadcast stuff that's newsworthy.
1. Re:wtf? by chihowa · 2014-05-01 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  Wtf, indeed?
  The difference between the commercial and noncommercial things you list is scale. Many things that are allowed for individuals (sport fishing or picking wildflowers (which, by the way, is still illegal for individuals... the difference is in enforcement) are forbidden for commercial interests because the impact of large scale operations is more damaging. Disallowing commercial activities is easier than putting limits in place and ramping up inspection and enforcement for small operations.
  The potential audience of a YouTube video is just as large as a press published video, even if the marketing push of the press is larger. Your "argument" doesn't apply in that case.
  -=-=-=-=-
  You people who are so motivated by your politics that you must attempt to skew and misinterpret reality to fit your current set of political insults are weird. Party politics really are the systematic movement to remove rationality from government. Goodbye Enlightenment and Age of Reason. Welcome back to tribalism and knee-jerk emotional hysterics.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
2. Re:wtf? by chihowa · 2014-05-01 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  In case this is bugging anyone else as much as it is me, here's the close to that dangling parenthesis: )
  Ahhh, OCD soothed...
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
3. Re:wtf? by barc0001 · 2014-05-01 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  Every single thing on your list has one major difference. Fishing? Resource consumed. Wildflowers? Resource consumed. Videotape, resource (potential sales) consumed. FM broadcasting, resource consumed (spectrum. Your little micro FM might block someone else who paid for the spectrum). All of these are a thing because if a lot of people do it, the resources will be gone or severely degraded.
  Now, if I fly a drone and photograph me some tornado carnage and then post it on youtube vs selling it to a TV station would you please point out where that resource I consumed was? Hell, even if there were 500 microdrones in the air at the same time taking footage, how is that a problem? As long as they abide by the same regulations of amateur use with regard to altitude and line of sight, who cares?
  This is a classic example of the regulations not catching up to reality.
Permitted Restriction by Etherwalk · 2014-05-01 03:37 · Score: 1

While there is a First Amendment issue here, the government almost certainly wins.
Time, place, and manner restrictions on first amendment activity are usually Constitutional so long as there is some rational basis for them. A reasonable time, place, and manner restriction with a public safety rationale would almost *never* be struck down.
I'd like to see a debate on press "stalking" by GodfatherofSoul · 2014-05-01 03:45 · Score: 2

If I follow a woman around and snap pictures of her through her windows, I'm a stalker. If she's in the public eye for *whatever* reason and I tell the cop I'm going to sell the pics to the Enquirer, that makes it OK. No one would have a problem using drones to survey farmland, but what happens when there's a network of drones in the air tracking the movements of every citizen and that database is sold to the the government?
This is something we need to get worked out quickly before the abuses start.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
It isn't a safety regulation! by bigpat · 2014-05-01 04:04 · Score: 1

They do not, however, have carte blanche to ignore laws and safety regulations.
How is it a "safety regulation" if I can do the same exact thing with a small UAV and it is legal as long as I am not getting paid in some way?
So if the guy looking for earthquake survivors by Maxo-Texas · 2014-05-01 04:25 · Score: 1

became a reporter or was selling his video footage to news outlets, he might be able to resume looking for buried earthquake survivors with his drones.
Fundamental conflict between safety and reporting here.
I think reporting is going to lose but maybe we'll end up with reasonable altitude and geographical limits* on drones instead.
* i.e. under 250' and not within a few miles of active airports or heliports.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Not a 1st amendment thing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-01 04:56 · Score: 1

Flying anything has nothing to do with freedom of the press/speech. Neither does driving a car. If a reporter gets pulled over for DUI while reporting on a story and is taken into custody, it in no way infringes their 1st amendment rights, it doesn't exempt you from the law.
What I don't understand is why they don't just get licences or clearance to fly the things like they have for their helicopters? Then they comply with the regulations and there's no issue. Seem to me that a bunch of reporting, like traffic, would be much safer, and cheaper using drones rather than helicopters.
If it's an issue with the FAA being hesitant about drones (which they seem to be) then that should be taken to court and resolved and the regulations ironed out. It doesn't really seem like is should be as big as a deal as it is. Theres just too much association with the word 'Drone' and shooting missiles at terrorists, or spying.
Don Henley by ThatsNotPudding · 2014-05-01 05:17 · Score: 1

"It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry."

This is why I'm never too thrilled about all the 'storm hunters' late spring brings out to my state - it's all about getting lucrative footage and an adrenaline rush (some offer vacation packages, FFS). Precious few of them and their families live in harms way from tornadoes; to them, it's just a cool vacation where they occasionally have to drive around and past the remains of the natives. They only stop long enough to film the carnage and death, and then bug out, following the funnels. Pricks.
No by Sepodati · 2014-05-01 08:44 · Score: 1

No. Drone does not imply autonomous flight.
Volume by Sepodati · 2014-05-01 08:55 · Score: 1

I think if commercial use were allowed, the number of drones buzzing around would skyrocket. Every event, from sports to news, would have a dozen different drones flying around looking for that perfect shot. That presents the safety concerns. Some of these quadcopters aren't exactly small and could hurt a few folks if dropped into a crowd.
Although I'm sure it's really just a money issue at the heart of it. There should just be a mechanism to register drones for flights just like they do with helicopters, blimps, etc. I think some of the footage you could get from them would be really cool to see on the news.