Slashdot Mirror
Don't Bring Your Drone To New Zealand
NewtonsLaw writes: Personal drones are changing the way some people experience vacations. Instead of toting along a camcorder or a 35mm DSLR, people are starting pack a GoPro and, increasingly, a drone on which to mount it. This is fine if you're going to a drone-friendly country, but be warned that your drone will get you into big trouble in Thailand (where all use of drones by the public is banned outright) and now in New Zealand, where strict new laws regarding the operation of drones (and even tiny toys like the 20g Cheerson CX10) come into effect on August 1.
Under these new rules, nobody can operate a drone or model aircraft without getting the prior consent of the owner over which property it is intended to fly — and (this is the kicker) also the permission of the occupiers of that property. So you can effectively forget about flying down at the local park, at scenic locations or just about any public place. Even if you could manage to get the prior permission of the land-owner, because we're talking "public place," you'd also have to get the permission of anyone and everyone who was also in the area where you intended to fly.
Other countries have produced far more sane regulations — such as limiting drone and RC model operators to flying no closer than 30m from people or buildings — but New Zealand's CAA have gone right over the top and imposed what amounts to a virtual death-sentence on a hobby that has provided endless, safe fun for people of all ages for more than 50 years. Of course if you are prepared to pay a $600 fee to become "Certified" by CAA then the restrictions on where you can fly are lifted and you don't need those permissions.
Under these new rules, nobody can operate a drone or model aircraft without getting the prior consent of the owner over which property it is intended to fly — and (this is the kicker) also the permission of the occupiers of that property. So you can effectively forget about flying down at the local park, at scenic locations or just about any public place. Even if you could manage to get the prior permission of the land-owner, because we're talking "public place," you'd also have to get the permission of anyone and everyone who was also in the area where you intended to fly.
Other countries have produced far more sane regulations — such as limiting drone and RC model operators to flying no closer than 30m from people or buildings — but New Zealand's CAA have gone right over the top and imposed what amounts to a virtual death-sentence on a hobby that has provided endless, safe fun for people of all ages for more than 50 years. Of course if you are prepared to pay a $600 fee to become "Certified" by CAA then the restrictions on where you can fly are lifted and you don't need those permissions.
I swear I didn't bring it. It flew there itself.
Sooner or later it's going to happen elsewhere. The extraordinary lack of etiquette and basic decency among some drone owners is steadily going to make the public outcry to do something about the problem greater and greater.
Stop flying your fucking toys over my fucking property.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm by now means an expert, but I was of the understanding NZ already had some pretty draconian legislation with regards to model aircraft flying, to the extent that it's effectively restricted to LoS, by licensed amateurs (or those under the supervision of) at designated airfields.
If this is the case, then these "new" drone rules are not exactly unexpected.
So you think invasion of privacy is good?
Good. This is a good balance of privacy. I don't want to be filmed in hi definition when I am outside. Get my permission AND the permission of the property owners and you can. If you can't, then do it on YOUR property.
I do own 4 quadcopters, 3 airplanes and 2 hrlicopters (all RC of course) but I do agree with very strong regulations.
There are too many idiots and pitbull owners out there who are anxious to hit innocent people if they are allowed to.
Very good, Thailand, that is the only way to go.
NewtonsLaw makes no secret of being a drone enthusiast, but pretending that nobody was ever injured or property damaged by a drone is just ludicrous.
Oh, cry me a river. Drone operators no longer have an unlimited right to invade people's privacy and endanger their safety. Sorry dude, but the airspace is common property and it's sensible to regulate its use for the common good. Either that, or we can have drone wars, where people who don't want your drones in the skies fly their own to take them down.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Man a ban on tourist video drones would be terrible for sightseeing.
Thank god New Zealand doesn't have much pretty scenery.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
How is it not sane to think that the people who could be potentially hit by your craft would have something to say about it flying over them?
I find this a perfectly reasonable law. Don't forget it means that could could fly on private property NEXT to the public property and film from there, as long as you are not directly over the public area...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I like the new rules. I would also like to be allowed to disable any drones that invade my privacy.
You guys are fucked. Enjoy your draconian regulations.
To be fair, New Zealand is the country iconic for having flightless birds that are utterly incapable of surviving against species introduced to the island. It seems only appropriate that their drone situation should be similarly flightless and delicate.
Going to a foreign country to visit and having a drone flying over your head... Really? Always finding new ways to display an astonishing lack of class.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I have been flying quad copters for about 3 months now before that i spend 2 years doing RC planes and the basic rules of do not fly above people or private property make complete sense to me.
The problem is that drones are now easier to make and fly then ever before and idiots who never flown a RC quad in their life buy one and go flying out of line of sight with those things the moment they get them.
For them the entire appeal of the hobby is camera's and "spying" on people and those assholes ruin something fun for everybody
No, and there is no expectation of privacy in public places.
Seriously, the drone craze is going way overboard. Joe-nobody doesn't need a drone to take pictures and videos, to put on his instagram. Keep the drones in the hands of professionals(emergency first response) and people who actually need them for their jobs, like movie studios and real estate agent.
I'm pissed of me having to have the drapes closed on my upstairs windows because a dick of a neighbor like to fly around and see if he can find something sordid of "funny" on his camera. The girls in the neighborhood cant sunbathe nude/topples in their own backyards any more either. We have complained and called the cops but it seems he is well within his right. :-/
public places? Oh, you mean like in your own garden? On your own property and in house?
Just ask Bruce Simpson (aka "RC Model Reviews" on YouTube) what it's like to deal with the old men (ie. assholes) in charge in NZ.
Your backyard. Inside the Duxton. Yes... you do have expectation of privacy without drone flying into that space or above it to take photos. Your grossly liberal interpretation just shows what a self centered ass you are. And this attitude is exactly why a very strong law gets into place.
Waddya gonna do?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
along with due process laws.
Please continue...
I think this is a good move. Make people take some basic safety classes and tests and pay a fee to become certified. Pull their certification if they are jerks or are operating unsafely. People that are serious about the hobby are usually the people that are polite, careful, etc, and they are the people willing to put in the effort to get licensed. People that are serious about flying drones are usually the people most annoyed by the crazies that are doing things recklessly and ruining the hobby for everyone else.
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
It just means that you will need to fly them on private land.
I have an RC aircraft habit myself and that's what I do, fly on private land. I suppose I could use the street in front of my house, but it's kind of dangerous and noisy so I don't think my neighbors would appreciate it so I joined a club. The club I'm in has agreement with a private land owner and we fly on their property. The hobby will not die, it will just be relegated to private property.
I understand why people are upset, but let's face it, the crazies among us who insist on flying their drones in places they shouldn't have, taking pictures of things they shouldn't have and being irresponsible in general have made this necessary. Don't blame the government, blame the crazies that make this necessary for privacy and safety.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So, why do they need the consent of everyone present? If a store can have CCTV without the consent of everyone present (only the owners), then why couldn't a landowner give consent for someone to fly a drone over their property, regardless of whether or not they invited other people?
There is such a thing as balance.
The mainstream public is a bit ridiculous when it comes to drones - they think they're so important that another person would waste their time and spy on them using a drone. First off, you're not that important, get over yourself. Second, do you have any idea what kind of footage a drone would have at 100 ft away? Keep in mind that while it's high-def, there's no zoom. A drone would need to be 10 ft away to get a clear image of your face.
If you ask these same people how they feel about low flying aircraft or someone walking down the street with a mobile phone, you would get a more accepting response. But why? Lower flying planes could carry hundreds of pounds photography gear and could zoom in on your eyebrow lashes. The person walking down the street with a mobile phone could zoom and get some real up-close shots of you while you're in your garden.
Is it possible that the drone flyer is just making a video of the general area or just having fun flying a remote controlled toy?
If the cops can do it, so can the rest of us. Fuck them. We just have to make smaller drones that are harder to spot.
If you don't like drones buzzing around you, carry a damn slingshot and a pocket full of rocks! Don't be a crybaby!
They couldn't get real dragons, so they got draconian legislation? Sounds positively Napoleonic to me.
Would you like this one zipping over your head while trying to enjoy the scenery?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p5uDf9i_Yc
Sadly, New Zealand is becoming more and more over-regulated all the time. It used to have a refreshing lack of bureaucracy compared to, say, the UK - but now it's the other way around.
Sounds like a possible money maker for certified pilots, to hire themselves out to tourists by the hour to provide drone tours, either over preset courses or something more freeform. 3D googles included, and you get to keep the footage!
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
They have all those fucking Awks running around there tearing things up and eating people but I can't bring my little ol' drone?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to require the permission of a landowner. I think it's unreasonable to require the consent of all present.
How is flying an R/C aircraft an invasion of your privacy keyboard warrior?
Yup you tell me that next time you're out flying as a private pilot and a drone tries to hit you. It's already happened to me once. Big sky little plane reasoning doesn't work.
And New Zealand has some of the most dronable scenery in the world, too. This regulation will not survive a week in Queenstown.
Gotta smash your pretty toys, nerde de merde.
Sadly, New Zealand is becoming more and more over-regulated all the time. It used to have a refreshing lack of bureaucracy compared to, say, the UK - but now it's the other way around.
All of the primary English speaking countries are going down the same over-regulated path; Canada, USA, UK, Australia, NZ. They may as well be the same country as far as I'm concerned. Stifling, oppressive, paranoid, reactionary. Its times like this I'm really sad that I'm a native English speaker. I guess its time to start learning Spanish or something.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Just avoid private property, or ask permission. See from the city website if the flying over public areas is allowed. Then show a reasonable effort by asking from the people you see and are accessible for asking permission. If somebody protests, stop doing what you're doing.
Don't Bring Your Drone to New Zealand While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood
- Please, Flight of the Concords, make this spoof.
All of the primary English speaking countries are going down the same over-regulated path; Canada, USA, UK, Australia, NZ. They may as well be the same country as far as I'm concerned. Stifling, oppressive, paranoid, reactionary. Its times like this I'm really sad that I'm a native English speaker. I guess its time to start learning Spanish or something.
So you can live in a non-oppressive country like Mexico, or most of the countries in central and south America?
We need to fight to maintain our freedoms and there's no doubt that things have been getting progressively worse. But get a little perspective.
I think it's unreasonable to require the consent of all present.
I think that depends on context. I'm speculating, but I think the intent of the law was to include tenants who rent property, which was my interpretation of the word "occupant." My landlord might not give a crap if you fly a drone over his house, he's not here. But I live there, so get lost. However, if the summary is correct and it has a broader implication that extends to public places then I would agree that seems to be taking it a bit far.
Just a guess, but there probably was no clean way to word it less-strongly than they did. It will probably be interpreted by the courts, in the case of private property, that the rule means that anyone living there or anyone there with the permission of the owner or tenant (call it the property-equivalent of a guardian) will be able to rule yay/nay on the use of drones in the legal airspace of that property.
As to those who feel this is unnecessarily burdensome, how would you feel if a person put a camera on a 50' pole, pointed it down to look at the ground 30' to 50' away, and stood with that pole in the alley behind your house, filming everything going on in your backyard? How would you feel if your neighbor did this on their own property, right at the property line? I'm not talking about a fixed installation either, just something that someone can set-up and bring with them and personally use, that happens to take high-resolution pictures and can use a variety of lenses to focus in on whatever details they would like to.
It's not necessarily the RC devices that are causing the laws, it's the ability to put cameras on them.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The logo for their air force is the same as the British with a red Kiwi in the centre. The symbol of their air force....is a flightless bird!
> If you don't like drones buzzing around you, carry a damn slingshot and a pocket full of rocks! Don't be a crybaby!
Why should I now have to carry and use a slingshot just to keep the privacy I grew up with?
Ban all drones, I say. If it's just good clean fun of flying around, then let's make designated areas where hobbyists can do that. Not where I live.
First bring in a complete ban, then look at making exceptions.
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
All of the primary English speaking countries are going down the same over-regulated path; Canada, USA, UK, Australia, NZ. They may as well be the same country as far as I'm concerned. Stifling, oppressive, paranoid, reactionary. Its times like this I'm really sad that I'm a native English speaker. I guess its time to start learning Spanish or something.
So you can live in a non-oppressive country like Mexico, or most of the countries in central and south America?
We need to fight to maintain our freedoms and there's no doubt that things have been getting progressively worse. But get a little perspective.
There is this other country you may have heard of. I hear the speak quite a bit of Spanish there.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
The symbol of their air farce....is a flightless bird!
FTFY.
No, and there is no expectation of privacy in public places.
But this is about more than just public places.
I have a backyard that's entirely screened from my neighbors with foliage. I don't have anything particularly interesting going on in there, but by the definition of what provides a reasonable expectation of privacy, my backyard is private. You can't see what's back there with just a casual glance from outside my land; you have to use specific means to do it. If there were a drone flying around, looking down at me while I was back there grilling or whatnot, I have to say it would bug me. And the law sides with me on that front, just as it would if I were complaining about someone climbing up a tree to get a peek inside a second-story window of my home.
I do get the angst over this; I think New Zealand is going way, way too far. But let's face it...the kiwis have taken PC and liberalism to an extreme. (Hell, I'm not even a conservative, and I think they're way overboard.) But on the other hand, this seems to be what their populace wants, since they keep voting in people who do things like this. I would say that if we don't like it, we can simply stay out of New Zealand. There are other places to experience pretty much anything New Zealand has to offer, with the single exception of some over-the-top LoTR cosplay done "on location."
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Where are all these asshole multirotor pilots? I've seen a grand total of zero people flying multirotors in public areas. Zero. And I spent part of 2013 and most of 2014 wandering around the country (United States) visiting lots of scenic places where I would have expected to see at least one person flying a camera platform. I have yet to see one flying at a park, lake, canyon, city square, sports arena, concert venue, city/county/state fair, tractor pull, race track (horse, car, or dog), beach, or anywhere else. The only multirotors I've seen are my own which I fly over my own property. And that one time I flew one around an empty RV park where I was the only person in sight.
If this is such a huge problem, why haven't I seen anyone flying them recklessly? Heck, I haven't seen them flying in public places at all. The way people talk, it sounds like every open space is swarming with flying camera but all I've seen are a few reports of isolated asshattery.
I feel like they must be more common (densely packed) in cities. I never see any where I live (a moderately rural farm town).
So, you can fly over other peoples' property, or public property, if you're in an aircraft (which could violate someone's privacy or fall on them), but not if you're not in the aircraft? Is that the point? Does this apply to aircraft which contain passengers but not the pilot? (And if so, what about passengers who could be the pilot but aren't always while they're in the plane?)
I presume larger aircraft get different regulations because they're "better" - either better regulated, or more reliable / less likely to violate peoples privacy, or just more expensive.
Oops, they left out the part where there are designated flying areas for drones and other model aircraft, thereby making this mostly a story that you can't do whatever the hell you want on somebody else's property.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
"people are starting pack"
Culver City and LA here - never seen one except one a co-worker brought in to show off. Never have seen one flying in the wild, ever.
Why should I now have to carry and use a slingshot just to keep the privacy I grew up with?
Ban all drones, I say.
Why should I have to act illegally to retain all the freedoms I grew up with?
Presumably, you also think that kites should be treated the same way?
I'm not sure why anyone would think that given how much less mass they have, and the fact they are almost entirely physically controlled. If a string breaks they flutter to the ground, not plummet.
And baseballs, footballs, soccer balls?
These objects basically hug the ground and don't have the ability to rapidly change course, nor are they generally operating at speeds that can cause much harm. Note however that baseballs ARE dangerous enough that people batting generally confine themselves to specific areas for that purpose, because they could in fact hurt someone.
When's the last time you saw someone playing baseball (with a bat, not throwing) in the middle of a festival or crowded park? You are basically saying you would do that if given a choice?
If drone operators had 1/10 the common sense the average baseball players had you wouldn't see regulations like this.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
200' feet up and GPS constrained to public roads .... same photos taken. This law is stupid.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Other countries have produced far more sane regulations — such as limiting drone and RC model operators to flying no closer than 30m from people or buildings
That's not a 'sane regulation'. It prevents you from flying a palm-sized drone pretty much anywhere in a city.
These are basically the Red Flag Acts of the drone era. Ooh, scary, Ug not like scary thing, Ug must ban!
But, hey, if those countries don't want anything to do with one of the most important industries of the 21st century, doesn't worry me.
You're describing two different scenarios - the key difference is intent.
Erecting a pole with the *specific purpose* of looking into my yard is against the law.
Similarly, flying a quadcopter with the *specific purpose* of looking into my windows is against the law, and was already against the law before quadcopters were prevalent.
Flying a quadcopter with a camera in a public place (or over private property) where your yard is incidentally within view is NOT an invasion of privacy and no additional laws should ever come into place to change that. People seem to have this delusion lately that they're suddenly much more important than they used to be, and any camera MUST be in operation solely to record them. It's asinine.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
"the owner over which property"
It's "over WHOSE property", fucking AMERICAN idiot.
If you're on public land, you don't get an expectation of privacy.
I've often heard this repeated, but is it actually true?
Suppose I'm in a public space (say, a park) having a quiet conversation with someone, and keeping track of passersby: If someone walks up we stop talking.
Does this mean that someone (from the government) with a parabolic mic can eavesdrop on my conversations without a warrant?
Yes. That's exactly what it means (in the US) because that's the line the courts have upheld. There are some exceptions, based on state and local laws, but that's the federal law.
The argument is that it's only what a policeman would hear if he walked up and listened, but in that case we would stop talking.
Who made that argument? I haven't read the arguments in the cases argued before the SCOTUS, but I'd be very surprised if you can point to that argument in the court records. In fact, I suspect the problem is that you didn't realize that "Expectation of privacy" is a legal term used in discussing the fourth amendment to the US Constitution.
I have every expectation of privacy if I take steps to ensure that privacy: looking around to make sure no one can see me, for instance. Does this mean that the police can video-tape the sidewalk from the window of any office building without a warrant?
"I didn't think the cops would see me smoking crack" is not a legitimate argument in a court case. By contrast, "it was illegal for the cops to take the steps they did to get this evidence" is a legitimate argument.
I also note that there's no expectation of privacy *in your home* if you don't have the drapes closed. The implication is that we don't have an expectation of privacy *anywhere*, except in our homes and only if we're concealed.
The implication is that if the cops can see you do it without trespassing, then it can be used as evidence.
Does that sound like a free country?
Yes! What, you think prohibiting stuff makes people more free?
If you're on public land, you don't get an expectation of privacy.
In any event, we shouldn't be mindlessly repeating that meme as if it's the "law of the land". The more you say it, it only makes more people believe it.
Instead, we should be mindlessly repeating things things that sway public perception in a better direction.
Maybe repeating anything mindlessly is a bad idea. Maybe read about what expectation of privacy is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... so you don't have to come across as mindless.
If you fly a drone over my property, we get to find out how effective the various loads of 12 gauge shot shells are.
> Why should I have to act illegally to retain all the freedoms I grew up with?
What we grew up with (i.e. how the world was until a few years ago) was that a very small number of hobbyists would buy these expensive things. They'd practise, they'd be very careful with their expensive toys, and they flew for the fun of flying rather than peeping (their RCs had no camera). The only ones I saw were in a certain part of the same park every Sunday.
That's what existed when we were growing up, and to preserve that we just have to create a few designated fly places.
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
That's ridiculous, and shows you don't actually know what these are. 99.999% of the tens of thousands of daily quad flights are for 'good clean fun'.
There are bad apples with every single technology - are you going to propose we 'ban all uses of computers, then start to make exceptions'? Do you want to 'ban all uses of cellphones, then start to make exceptions'?
Give me a break.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
We should try this. For Science!
"We do what we must, because we can, for the good of all of us; except the ones who are dead."
I live in a densely-packed city. I've never seen one.
Things that are different should be considered separately.
It's true that there are plenty of hobbyists who like good clean fun, but that doesn't mean every new drone owner can do whatever they like. Drones are becoming a pest, so we should think of how to limit them so they're not a pest (a broad ban) and then we should think of how to allow the good clean fun hobbyists (exceptions such as designated fly areas, drone clubs, certification which involves training and can be revoked for breaches of safety and ethics rules).
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
Dunno, maybe Spain? :D
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Where are all these asshole multirotor pilots?
I think they're mostly a projection by the anti-drone nutters. THEY would use a drone to spy on their neighbour's teenage daughter if they had one, therefore everyone would.
It's like the anti-gun nutters who know that no-one can be trusted with guns, because THEY would go crazy and shoot everyone nearby if they had one.
Where have you personally observed them 'being a pest'? I want to hear your experiences, which will lend credibility to your kneejerk reactions; don't just point to yawn-worthy "news" stories.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
In California recently, firefighting aircraft were grounded due to a bunch of "Dorks with Drones" that were flying haphazardly over the fire. Just check Google News with "California fire drone".
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Forget GP's anecdotes, I want data! That might lend credence to their statement.
As a multirotor flyer myself I would say we are everywhere. The thing is, "most" of us fly responsibly and in areas that do not encroach on non-flyers properties. The reason you never see us is because we aren't out to spy on you. We aren't out to cause damage. We are out to have a good time, either alone or in groups. You know pretty much like any other fun past time. It's the fucking idiots who cause all issues. The few who don't care about others. The few who buy these ready to fly kits and have absolutely no business flying these things in places they have no business flying them. I live in a pretty backwards area of the US and I am surprised all the time by the number of peeps who fly multirotors down here. But even I have never just seen one flying out of the blue.
Do you complain about aircraft flying over your property without your permission too?
Where have you personally observed them 'being a pest'?
I've never been attacked by a lion. May I have an opinion on whether people in my city should be allowed keep lions as pets?
Also, putting regulations in place is easier before a practice becomes commonplace. There are no nuclear power plants in Ireland. Is banning them when they don't exist ok? Or should the government let companies build a load of nuclear plants before thinking of whether they're a good idea?
Keep in mind that I'm for a blanket ban *with exceptions*. I.e. putting limits on what drone owners can do. If the things I propose banning (such as peeping, tracking, stalking, harassing) aren't happening, then why do you oppose the banning those things?
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
Their law may be annoying and inconvenient but it is far from stupid or insane if it gives the NZ CAA more money and power.
It may be a bastard move, but they are smart bastards.
Furthermore there is nothing to stop a club from flying drones on private land and have everyone sign a consent form on entry onto the property, therefore the bit about killing off a hobby is a load of hysterical hyperbole.
Your final paragraph is contradictory. You started off saying you want a full ban, with a permissive list of uses; then you suggesting I wasn't agreeing with your opinion on making a restrictive list of things to not do. You should know that these two scenarios are very different.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting that I oppose the banning of "peeping, tracking, stalking, and harassing", it's just that those things are ALREADY illegal in most jurisdictions, making additional "because drone" legislation overkill, and likely overreach (because modern lawmaking is never only about the issue at hand anymore). There's not much that's illegal with a handheld camera that isn't presently illegal with a quadcopter.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
Best news I've heard today.
Tossers who think they can fly drones around and film anything they want: 0
Actual people: 1
Epic win.
How can you have a "far more sane" regulation than one that requires permission from all of the subject models and property?
Go NZ!
Here here!
> Your final paragraph is contradictory.
No. Peeping etc. are just examples of what I'd be aiming to prevent with such rules.
> "because drone" legislation overkill
I live in an apartment block. Directly in front of me is a busy road and on the other side is another apartment block. This is the wrong place for someone to have fun with a drone. It's all cars, pedestrians, and apartments. Anyone flying a drone over the road in front of my apartment is either unsafe and/or is targeting people in some way.
Laws against peeping etc. are hard to enforce. Proof is a nightmare. But a blanket ban of flying drones on or above the busy street in front of my apartment is much easier to enforce.
Making a specific law is also sometimes beneficial because by being clear about what's not allowed, you can avoid people doing illegal stuff either because they didn't understand or because they thought no one could prove they were peeping/harassing/etc. If you say "No drones", then it's clear. Better to prevent the crime than to (try to) solve it.
> handheld camera
The two technologies are abviously different. Handheld cameras don't fly in front of people's apartment windows (privacy) and don't fly over people's heads or over roads where they can cause an accident (safety). Handheld cameras are also easily traceable to their operator. This makes enforcing peeping laws etc. more practical, and it means social norms regulate much bad usage (people don't stand in front of houses filming through the window).
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
Much of the NZ airspace management has been privatized by the NZ government. A private corporation usually makes $$$ through these user fees. As a result of this expansion of regulation and user fees, the last 15 years has seen a destruction of a once-vibrant general aviation culture in NZ. Regulations and user-fees make it too expensive, and too much of a hassle, for most private individuals to fly a light aircraft there.
It seems-to-me perfectly consistent with the current user-fee regime in NZ to crush RC and drone hobbyists under similar regulation and user fees. The NZ CAA and its private corporate partner are continually hungry for more $$$. The CAA $600 RC "certification " fee sounds like it could be just the start.
U.S. hobbyists take note. User fees are being pitched every time the FAA is re-authorizated, and will likely lead to the same conclusion in the U.S. if allowed to be imposed. Under user fees, only well-heeled well-connected commercial operators will be able to use the skies -- no hobbyists or personal use: light aircraft, RCs, and "drones" alike.
The timing and purpose of this ban seems rather draconian, even for New Zealand. I mean, they pretty much just nuked any future independent movies from being filmed there, because it's going to be ridiculously expensive to secure permission to fly camera drones over public parklands. (You either close the park to the public, or get permission from everyone visiting on that particular day.) I suppose if they have the big bucks for a helicopter, that'll still be open.
But like I said, this seems ridiculously excessive. It makes no sense! It's a small, easily handled problem, and they just hit it with a pile driver.
Or...is it really such a "small" problem? I guess the interpretation of how small it is, depends greatly on how much money you paid for your ultra-secret air-strip in the middle of nowhere.
That's not Alex Jones or some other wooby-woo-woo-alien-Elvis-JFK-love-triangle website, that's The Guardian.
I imagine someone who paid $20 million dollars to have a D7 Caterpillar flown 50 miles into the middle of nowhere and carve out a secret airstrip would be pretty upset if some weekend drone pilot with a backpack and a mountain bike spoiled their little secret.
[End Of Line]
First and easy to miss given the title, Part 101 applies to UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, under 25kg) and RPAs (Remotely Piloted Aircraft, over 25kg). Drones just happen to be the currently trendy version, but it applies to all sorts of model aircraft. It's also not new - this has been in the works for months so those interested in it shouldn't be particularly surprised.
Second, the "license" (Part 102) is an Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certificate and in addition to the fee requires applicants to "provid[e] evidence they have conducted adequate risk assessment and developed a risk management plan." This does not strike me as all that unreasonable.
Organized flying on private land is still perfectly viable (e.g. a flying meet - it's private land, if someone shows up who doesn't want UAVs around, the owner/organizer can request/require that they leave the private land). Casual flying in public parks, etc. becomes more of a problem, but serious flyers who've bought or built good rigs are also more likely to be folks who can pony up for the Part 102 license. Links to a bunch more information and the actual CAA rules are here: https://www.airshare.co.nz/rul...
fencepost
just a little off
Agreed, and I live in a pretty nice, laid-back beach-side town.
As empathy, respect, and average IQ decrease we're seeing laws, bureaucracy, and political correctness ramping up to ludicrous speed. A lot of fun is being sucked out of life, that's for sure, and the people running the country are seemingly brainless idiots making decisions with random number generators (in fact, a random number generator would probably make better decisions).
Of course if you are prepared to pay a $600 fee to become "Certified" by CAA then the restrictions on where you can fly are lifted and you don't need those permissions.
Ahhhhh, that explains it. Corollary to Hanlon's razor Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by greed.
Dude! You're a fuckin' Nazi! If you ban mine, you better ban the goddamn cops and government from having them too. No, as a matter of fact, fuck you! Put on some damn sunglasses and a ball cap and shut the fuck up! Really, just shut up. Next you will be banning all cameras. You people are dangerous.
"Other countries have produced far more sane regulations"
Thats a big call. I work full time in the drone industry, and it seems to me these are the most sane laws of any country I'm aware of right now.
As an expat kiwi myself, I can predict with some confidence that permission, with certain conditions, will be given to everyone for all public areas. And those conditions will be a good compromise between the drone operator and other users of public land.
And it also means you can basically do whatever you want, with permission, on private land.
How exactly is this 'insane'? For all its pros and cons, New Zealand generally has the most sane laws and regulations I have experienced in the countries I have lived in (living in the US right now, trying to deal with the FAA... what was that about sanity?)
Damn right. We don't have a strike wing. In fact, we don't have any combat planes at all, as I understand it.
But then, this is the country where buying isopropyl alcohol requires a trip to the chemist and an explanation of what you're going to use it for, and you just can't buy it in large quantities.
I am glad that the New Zealand CAA did NOT go over the top. Well done to the CAA. The future most likely will consist of bees not being chopped in two and seeds falling from trees not being chopped into two or more pieces. Kindest regards from JONATHAN DEAN MACKENZIE.
I live in southern California. I know a few fields where people fly all sorts of RC aircraft. My neighbor flies a couple of small ones around my condo complex. A coworker uses one to film events at work. I've seen them at the beach, and I've seen a couple at a comic convention. They're out there. I'd be upset if someone was looking in my windows with one, but I can't see the point of getting worked up over them in a less-invasive situation than that.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I can't see the point of getting worked up over them in a less-invasive situation than that.
...Of course, that's the privacy side of things. The idiots that compromise other people's safety (like the ones flying above fires) deserve to have their devices confiscated and possibly to see some fines or jail time.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
If the things I propose banning (such as peeping, tracking, stalking, harassing)
Don't most places already have laws against those things? Do we really need to pass new laws that include the text of the old ones with the phrase "using a drone" tacked on the end?
then why do you oppose the banning those things?
Because the abuses of the few shouldn't cause a restriction on the freedoms of the many.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
That's odd. In the U.S., I can buy isopropyl alcohol by the liter at a 70% concentration for a couple dollars, and the cashier won't blink. Out of curiosity, what is the justification for making it difficult to obtain?
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
It is always wrong to ban the tool over the activity.
The vast majority of the debate on quadcopters is the camera, so it's really not that different from a DSLR or smartphone camera.
> People don't stand in front of houses filming through the window.
Do you not know about 'Peeping Tom' laws? That shit was going on decades, if not centuries, before the first quadcopter was developed.
Bottom line: There is nothing novel about cameras on quadcopters, from a legal standpoint. Ill intent is already against the law. We do not need overarching legislation.
I really hope you're not in the US... your sentiments are the complete opposite of how the country should operate.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
Primarily, aircraft are controlled by pilots trying to preserve their own lives. They also have a chance to take measures (depending on the aircraft) in the event of a systems failure.
OTOH, drones have greater chances of failure during flight because of remote control. Its a fundamental flaw.
> Don't most places already have laws against those things?
I live in an apartment block. Facing me is another apartment block and between the two buildings there's a busy footpath, then a busy road, and another busy footpath. Nothing else. If someone loses control of an RC, there's an unacceptable chance of injury and could include causing a car crash.
Anyone who flys a drone over so many people is either an idiot who doesn't understand safety, or they know it's unsafe but they specifically want to be near people.
In terms of convicting someone of illegal drone use, you're right that anti-harassment could be tried. Problem is that they might or mightn't work, you might have a hard time proving it, and the case could take years. If you want to prevent the incident, it's better to have a clear law "No drones here".
> Because the abuses of the few shouldn't cause a restriction on the
> freedoms of the many.
Drone are used by only a small group, so we're talking about restricting a small group to safeguard the safety and privacy of the many.
Further, drones as a good clean fun hobby can be played with in designated areas (not over the busy road in front of my apartment window).
(Unrelated note: I see we have a "-1 Disagree but can't say why" mod in the room. My comments, including ones that never got up-modded, are getting "-1 Overrated".)
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
The vast majority of the debate on quadcopters is the camera, so it's really not that different from a DSLR or smartphone camera.
They're completely different, as I explained, they go in different places, one can have no visible link to its controller.
> People don't stand in front of houses filming through the window.
Do you not know about 'Peeping Tom' laws?
They're good laws, and they're one deterrent. Another deterrent is that standing in front of someone's house filming through the window is socially frowned on. With drones, it can be hard to find the operator, so the peeping tom laws might prove unenforceable in a given case, and the operator doesn't have to stand where the camera is, so the social aspects are no deterrent.
If people enjoy flying, then let's make designated places where they can do that. Not over footpaths, roads, people's gardens or near to apartments and houses.
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
The airlines have never asked for my permission to fly over my property. Why should drone operators be treated any different?
Oh that's right, they won't be treated any different if they pay the $600 fee.
I finally figured out why you're such a bootlicker! You're from the UK.
That explains why you default to sucking shoelaces instead of having a spine. The use of "footpath" kinda gave it away.
There are already designated places to fly: Public spaces and private areas that operators own or have permission. There are already guidelines on how not to fly recklessly, not to mention the general "Don't be a dick" rule of life.
Sure, there are people who violate that, but they don't need a quadcopter to do it. Again, there is nothing novel about a quadcopter over any other piece of technology that it needs special legislation. I can set a remote shutter for a camera in a tree. I can use a telephoto lens. I could set up an IP camera with 3G access purchased anonymously. There are tons of ways I could act like an asshole without anyone knowing it was me.
Stay in your house if you are so afraid of people and let the rest of society enjoy the freedom of choice.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
But you've already admitted that you've not experienced anyone who has flown over this busy road or busy footpath. So maybe you should give operators (as a whole) a little more credit to their intelligence?
There will always be stupid people in this life that go outside the norms, but you can't damn the entire group or the tool itself. Technology has no will of its own.
Do you not have hobbies? How would you feel if someone wanted to arbitrarily restrict them?
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
If you don't want to fly a drone over a busy street between two apartment blocks, how is my proposal a restriction?
> Do you not have hobbies? How would you feel if someone wanted to arbitrarily restrict them?
One of my hobbies is sitting at my open window getting some sun. Yes, I would be annoyed if I couldn't do this in peace because people were allowed fly camera drones in front of my window. And I bet women would be much more annoyed than I would be.
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
N e w Z e a l a n d. Not the United States.
A drone won't damage a big firefighter aircraft. They could just ignore their presence, and if they get broken, oh well.
There are already designated places to fly: Public spaces and private areas that operators own or have permission.
Great. So people who enjoy flying drones can go there. There's no need to declare the whole city a designated fly zone.
"Don't be a dick" rule of life. Sure, there are people who violate that
And what happens? Nothing. You like asking for examples: have you an example of anti-harassement or peeping tom laws being succesfully used against people who are just being a dick with a drone? I'm guessing the case would have to be either extreme or very very clear and the annoyed person would have to have gotten lucky in finding the operator, and the person would have to have enough spare time and energy to want to go through a court case. That's not reliable.
there is nothing novel about a quadcopter over any other piece of technology
Of course there is. The combination is new and greatly changes the risk level and how effective the old laws are.
That's like saying we should have no laws about computer networks because networks are just pieces of plastic and metal. "Stop blocking my freedom to use plastics!"
Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
I live in an apartment block. Facing me is another apartment block and between the two buildings there's a busy footpath, then a busy road, and another busy footpath. Nothing else. If someone loses control of an RC, there's an unacceptable chance of injury and could include causing a car crash.
If someone's flying there, they deserve to have their equipment confiscated by the police and to be charged with a crime with "endangerment" or "negligence" in its name. I agree that it makes sense to restrict allowed flight areas to places that don't have heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic, the same way that I think it makes sense to have posted "no parking" signs. "No hobby aircraft here" makes more sense to me than "No hobby aircraft, period".
Drone[s] are used by only a small group, so we're talking about restricting a small group to safeguard the safety and privacy of the many.
We're talking about restricting a small group (RC aircraft pilots) for the bad behavior of a much, much smaller group (negligent/irresponsible/criminal RC aircraft pilots). The behavior is what I'm opposed to, not the technology...so why would I want a blanket ban on the technology, rather than the behavior?
In terms of convicting someone of illegal drone use, you're right that anti-harassment could be tried. Problem is that they might or mightn't work, you might have a hard time proving it, and the case could take years. If you want to prevent the incident, it's better to have a clear law "No drones here".
In a perfect world, all crimes would be both simple and easy to prove, and criminals would get what they deserve. I don't believe in outright banning something because a small fraction of its users abuse it. I feel that on the balance, the loss due to the reduced freedom of action of the responsible users is greater than the gain of preventing an already rare occurrence.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
It's probably true, most of the time....until it hits a prop blade just right and causes a few thousand dollars of damage to the firefighting aircraft. You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it that they could never damage the larger craft, though.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
If they could, seagulls would be doing it all the time.
There's more than enough evidence that shows people with guns are the ones inclined to take them everywhere just to intimidate everyone within sight. In fact, nobody's ever seen somebody without a gun go around with a gun to intimidate people! You might want to see a psychiatrist for that denial and projection problem you have.
No they were not. Those 'drones' as you call it and so readily believe what the media spoon fed you, were not the quadcopters everyone now imagines.
Those 5 aircraft were RC gliders that were operating from an established, air chart marked, field. they were fixed wing aircraft that had been in the air for many hours before the wildfire was a problem. There is no practical or legitimate way for those operators were to know of fires springing up in the distance and creeping into the area. There was no TFR in effect for that location at that time and this nothing illegal took place. As soon as the operators were aware of manned aircraft there, they descended and cleared the airspace even though they were taking part in what was supposed to be some kind of flight time record.
The media never bothered to look into the details and even when it is repeatedly pointed out to them, they never update the story, chosing to continue the fear mongering, which you apparently have bought into.
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
... but New Zealand's CAA have gone right over the top and imposed what amounts to a virtual death-sentence on a hobby that has provided endless, safe fun for people of all ages for more than 50 years.
Drone pilots should be subject to the same restrictions as flying model aircraft pilots.
FMA pilots have to be certifiied. FMA pilots have to pay Public Liability Insurance as part of their aeroclub membership. Interesting fact: the Public Liability Insurance is the *MAJORITY* of aeroclub membership costs, often more than 80%! The Public Liability Insurance only covers them for FMA operations at registered FMA fields. Sure, you can be a cowboy and go flying at the local park or a gliding slope by a road... but your insurance isn't going to cover you. There isn't a weekend goes by that an FMA pilot somewhere isn't having their finger sliced open or even sliced off. Or worse.
Five minutes Googling will find you plenty of news articles about people (usually *not* the pilots) getting killed by flying model planes and helicopters:
You're being completely disingenuous by implying that piloting flying model aircraft, and by extensions drones, is a safe hobby. It's far from safe.
I mean, you can't fly it over my home without my permission - unless you pay the government 600 bucks.
This is consistent with what friends in NZ tell me about how the government there operates.
Yeah, except they found out later it was a military drone owned by a defense contractor.
Bird strikes frequently cause various levels of damage, sometimes resulting in fatalities. Quadcopters are made of considerably harder materials than birds generally, and something like a DJI Phantom 3 has a comparable mass to a Western Gull, which is a fairly good-sized bird.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Now I see the root issue that's causing you to act this way ... delusion.
Nobody is going to fly a camera in front of your window to look at you.
You're not that important.
Open your window, get some sun. Try not to have a heart attack if you hear a buzzing sound outside; it's more likely to be a weedwacker than a quadcopter.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
Great. So people who enjoy flying drones can go there. There's no need to declare the whole city a designated fly zone.
They do. You do realize that "public spaces" generally encompass all outside areas that aren't private property. Public. In other words, the vast majority of "the whole city". So thanks for your approval!
"Don't be a dick" rule of life. Sure, there are people who violate that
And what happens? Nothing.
Yeah, sometimes that happens. I can give you tons of examples of people being dicks that end up with no legal or social repercussions, and somehow life goes on.
You can't fix everything, especially with arbitrary laws; you only end up hurting the good folks. There's an certain level of risk that you inherently accept when you live in a first-world society.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
No ordinary multi-rotor drone (or model glider) could even fly anywhere near a full sized helicopter - the downdraft would immediately knock it out of the air and kill it. Actually even flying over something like a wild fire would probably rapidly crash one. I suspect the pilots of just being silly and over-reacting.
Its a natural instinct of law enforcement officials or firemen to want to curtail the publics (or journalists) rights to be in the same space and take pictures of them working..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
Nuclear plants are a rather odd and amusing choice for an example. The dislike and campaign against nuclear power has pushed the world towards more use of coal and oil plants - and this has indirectly killed an extra 5 to 10 million people globally since the 1970's. In the UK alone the campaign against nuclear power has killed something like 100,000 people, in the US its something like 500,000 or more..
The same kind of thinking is why drugs like Marijuana and heroine are illegal while nicotine and alcohol are legal.. In the UK alcohol kills 10,000 to 20,000 a year and cigarettes kill 100,000 a year.
As for your argument with lions - you can buy a large dog - you can buy a large kitchen knife - you can buy a chainsaw - in the UK all without a licence.. Chainsaws are insanely dangerous compared to most drones, one slip with a chainsaw and you can lose an arm or leg or kill yourself. The real threat with drones is the ability to spy on people, or to annoy them. Attacking people with a drone already is a crime. Drones are a real threat - if fitted with a bomb or other (lethal) weapon - but in that case are already definitely illegal.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
No ordinary multi-rotor drone (or model glider) could even fly anywhere near a full sized helicopter
Most of the aircraft used in California are fixed-wing aircraft (apparently, 14 spotter planes, 11 helicopters, and 23 tanker planes). Some quadcopters apparently have no trouble flying over wildfires.
Its a natural instinct of law enforcement officials or firemen to want to curtail the publics (or journalists) rights to be in the same space and take pictures of them working..
I'm not going to actually disagree with that, but I don't think that's a sufficient explanation for why they'd want to curtail flights in places with an unknown pilot flying through the same airspace that the larger aircraft would also like to occupy.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Agree and not to fly a drone full stop with or without licence. Who enforces against licence misuse?
Thankfully it's not TEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRIIIIISSSSSSTSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!
In Australia and NZ lots of solvents are restricted and regulated because they are really useful for making drugs.
Then fit firefighting copters with lasers to shoot them down.
I can't wait to see what happens when the gun control fanatics and the anti-drone fanatics get together after viewing the YouTube of the teenager who had a handgun mounted on a drone and fired it. According to news reports, no laws were broken by his actions.
This is why I still come here, to hear the other side of the story. Can you supply sources for this info?
Can the landowner also consent to an object randomly falling out of the sky and causing injury? I haven't encountered that issue in any CCTV enable store I've ever been in.
Flying a quadcopter with a camera in a public place (or over private property) where your yard is incidentally within view is NOT an invasion of privacy
I think it is, as do many others. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
and no additional laws should ever come into place to change that.
Because 2015 is the pinnacle of human existence and no new laws should ever be created again. Even if new technology allows you to breach the principals of existing laws, we should never ever make new laws because.... ???
People seem to have this delusion lately that they're suddenly much more important than they used to be, and any camera MUST be in operation solely to record them. It's asinine.
No, people have always demanded a reasonable amount of privacy, with laws that protect this belief. New technology is allowing access that didn't previously exist, so new laws like this are merely maintaining the same expectation we've had for centuries. I fail to see why anyone expected any different result.
I would say that if we don't like it, we can simply stay out of New Zealand.
You're implying there is someplace else you can go instead that isn't afflicted by similar restrictions. If the worst thing about NZ is you can't fly your drone without a permit, then that's still not such a bad place.
It's not a ban, you simply need to get a license. Considering you can seriously injure someone if you get it wrong, I can't see why this is such a big deal.
Do we really need to pass new laws that include the text of the old ones with the phrase "using a drone" tacked on the end?
I think we do. Because drones open a whole new physical dimension that never previously existed.
Because the abuses of the few shouldn't cause a restriction on the freedoms of the many.
Er, yes they should, that is exactly how it should work. Or do you think we wait until 50% of drivers kill someone before we introduce any road rules?
That's odd. In the U.S., I can buy isopropyl alcohol by the liter at a 70% concentration for a couple dollars, and the cashier won't blink. Out of curiosity, what is the justification for making it difficult to obtain?
I won't even bother looking it up, but without knowing either stats, I'm betting that the US has worse drug problems than NZ?
No idea. Pseudoephedrine is controlled (as a precursor to amphetamine), and there are probably other substances that are, but I don't even know what isopropyl alcohol would be useful for that ethanol wouldn't be.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I think we do. Because drones open a whole new physical dimension that never previously existed.
Harassment is harassment. Peeping is peeping. I don't see the point of singling out one particular technology that can be abused. Kind of like how fraud is fraud; I don't think there should be a separate consideration for fraud occurring over phone lines versus data lines versus in-person. The original law should be made broad enough to cover all kinds of fraud to which it's meant to apply; same thing with ways that people can abuse toy helicopters and the like.
Er, yes they should, that is exactly how it should work. Or do you think we wait until 50% of drivers kill someone before we introduce any road rules?
I'd put different thresholds on imaginary privacy issues and safety issues likely to result in death. It's like putting a ban on walkie-talkies in the 90s because you could eavesdrop on cordless phone calls with them, versus issuing citations for not wearing a seatbelt in a car. They aren't really comparable situations. One is rare, of limited scope, and isn't likely to hurt anyone. The other is a preventative action that lowers traffic fatalities.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
. I don't see the point of singling out one particular technology that can be abused.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's doesn't exist.
New Technology allows you to do new things in new ways, and hence actions may be against the principal of an existing law, but not captured by it's definition.
You also can't be as vague as saying "No peeping" because that's how people get off with excuses like "I wasn't peeping, I was peeking".
Laws have to be specific otherwise people with good lawyers squirm out of them.
I'd put different thresholds on imaginary privacy issues and safety issues likely to result in death.
And those exist. The penalty for unlicensed drone use is not the same as manslaughter for example. It's like putting a ban on walkie-talkies in the 90s because you could eavesdrop on cordless phone calls with them, versus issuing citations for not wearing a seatbelt in a car. They aren't really comparable situations. One is rare, of limited scope, and isn't likely to hurt anyone. The other is a preventative action that lowers traffic fatalities.
Correct, but laws are generally the thing that keeps this rare, and prevents it becoming a bigger issue.
An example is laser pointers. They were all the rage a few years ago, everyone had them and they became a nuisance. No laws existed against blinding people with lasers because why would you have a law for something that hadn't been invented?
Then a pilot got flashed in the eyes while trying to land a fully loaded airliner so the authorities cracked down and banned them. Now they've almost disappeared from use (still around, but nowhere near the same number).
So the law identified an issue, dealt with it, and created and outcome satisfactory to the rest of society. This is no different.
New Technology allows you to do new things in new ways, and hence actions may be against the principal of an existing law, but not captured by it's definition.
Then it's a shoddily-written law that targets the methods of doing the action, without addressing the action itself. Actions should be punishable; methods should not be, unless there's a special reason to change the punishment based on the method used to perform the action.
You also can't be as vague as saying "No peeping" because that's how people get off with excuses like "I wasn't peeping, I was peeking".
If I were a lawyer, or otherwise versed in the appropriate legal terminology, I would've used it. As it is, I stuck to vernacular English.
And those exist. The penalty for unlicensed drone use is not the same as manslaughter for example
I'm not talking about penalties. I'm talking about a threshold of occurrences before I think something should be done about the problem.
No laws existed against blinding people with lasers because why would you have a law for something that hadn't been invented?
Bullshit; a law exists. Assault and battery would both apply, and possibly aggravated assault, to emphasize the life-changing damage that blinding someone would cause.
so the authorities cracked down and banned them.
That doesn't seem to be true, at least in the U.S. Lasers of various powers are widely available. The change, as I perceive it, is that the novelty value wore off, and most people in society began to recognize that using a dangerous tool as a toy is irresponsible. That being said, I can still go to a pet store and buy a class-1 laser as a cat toy. I can buy a class-3 in a store, marketed for pointing to stars.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Then it's a shoddily-written law that targets the methods of doing the action, without addressing the action itself. Actions should be punishable; methods should not be, unless there's a special reason to change the punishment based on the method used to perform the action.
Like shoddily built old houses and cars, people wrote the best laws they could at the time. When flaws are identified, then isn't the answer to amend and improve them? You're response seems to be just leave it and blame the original law writers for not getting it perfect the first time around.
If I were a lawyer, or otherwise versed in the appropriate legal terminology, I would've used it. As it is, I stuck to vernacular English.
Yeah but the law can't be that vague, which is why it is always changing to catch up with evolving language and technology
I'm not talking about penalties. I'm talking about a threshold of occurrences before I think something should be done about the problem.
You think, what about what I think? Or others think? I'm fine that you have your opinion, but you should also respect that other people have opinions, and your personal experience doe not reflect everyone else's experience on earth.
Drones may not present an issue to you or me right now, but somewhere on the planet I can imagine that they are, and I can also imagine that the popularity of drones is growing extremely fast, so even if not a problem right now, it soon will be (just like Laser pointers when they first hit the market)
Bullshit; a law exists. Assault and battery would both apply, and possibly aggravated assault, to emphasize the life-changing damage that blinding someone would cause.
Assault and battery won't stand up in court without evidence of injury.
The problem with lasers is a lot of damage is done indirectly, ie distraction causing accidents, which is not covered by assault and battery laws. Hence new laws specifically targeted at the new threat, previously impossible with the technology of the day.
That doesn't seem to be true, at least in the U.S. Lasers of various powers are widely available. The change, as I perceive it, is that the novelty value wore off, and most people in society began to recognize that using a dangerous tool as a toy is irresponsible. That being said, I can still go to a pet store and buy a class-1 laser as a cat toy. I can buy a class-3 in a store, marketed for pointing to stars.
Well that's the great thing about the Internet, you get to hear how it is in places that aren't where you're from.
Thanks Slashdot, now I've bought a Cheerson CX10.
Oh well, at least it was only about $15 shipped.
Like shoddily built old houses and cars, people wrote the best laws they could at the time. When flaws are identified, then isn't the answer to amend and improve them? You're response seems to be just leave it and blame the original law writers for not getting it perfect the first time around.
I'm not against amending laws as improvements are found, I'm against changing laws that should already cover some specific antisocial behavior so that they basically list off all the tools that can be used to facilitate that behavior (in this case, adding "using a drone or UAV" specifically into the law).
Yeah but the law can't be that vague
It can't be as vague as just saying "peeping", but it can be as vague as describing the behavior that it's meant to prevent, in as much detail as necessary to be clear what is or isn't covered by the law, and attaching punishments to variations in the situation, if necessary.
Assault and battery won't stand up in court without evidence of injury. The problem with lasers is a lot of damage is done indirectly, ie distraction causing accidents, which is not covered by assault and battery laws. Hence new laws specifically targeted at the new threat, previously impossible with the technology of the day.
I was talking about direct injury by blinding with those examples. Other situations would be covered by other laws, of course. Causing a distraction in traffic leading to injury isn't a new situation; the fact that a laser was used isn't directly relevant to the situation.
Well that's the great thing about the Internet, you get to hear how it is in places that aren't where you're from.
And the same to you =) My point was that in my area, where they weren't outlawed, they still don't commonly cause problems, despite being cheap and widely available. It's a proof by example that a ban isn't the only effective way to handle abuse of a tool.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.