Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Drone Camera Tornado Coverage Raises Press Freedom Questions

Posted by timothy on 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."

8 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. It depends on the hat you're wearing by i+kan+reed · · 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 i+kan+reed · · 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.

  2. Just think of all the damage by hsmith · · Score: 5, Funny

    The drone could have done if it crashed while filming a tornado. The deviation would be catastrophic

  3. Storm chasers and drones by OzPeter · · 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 Russ1642 · · 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.

  4. What? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 MightyYar · · 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.
  5. Re:News helicopters by beelsebob · · 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.