Slashdot Mirror
Drone Camera Tornado Coverage Raises Press Freedom Questions
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."
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 drone could have done if it crashed while filming a tornado. The deviation would be catastrophic
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?
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.
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.
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
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
Looks like the FAA appealed the decision on March 7th.
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_...
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.
.
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.
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.
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
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.
Interesting article over at the FAA concerning drones:
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240
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!
No.
The rules are (short version of legalese)
Fly by line of sight. (They get too small to fly more than a mile away) ... ABSOLUTE GROUND LEVEL, the distance between the aircraft and the ground below it must be less than 400 feet, not operator level.
Stay below 400 feet AGL
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
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
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.
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.