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.
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.
If you're on public land, you don't get an expectation of privacy.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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
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?
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.
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 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.
Does that sound like a free country?
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.
No, and there is no expectation of privacy in public places.
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.
Absolutely. Nothing better than sightseeing through a swarm of drones, relaxing in the peaceful atmosphere of buzzing electric motors, marvelling in the sight of your fellow tourists getting smashed in the head.
That's just what people go to NZ for, isn't it? It would be terrible if selfish dickheads were prevented from ruining it for everyone else.
I fly drones (real ones, not this crap that DJI sells, those are just Quads with some halfassed flight controllers).
I think this is GREAT. This is simply common sense. Someone else's property is not yours to do with as you wish, that includes public lands.
Quads ARE DANGEROUS when they are large enough to carry a camera. A drop from even 10 feet above your head with a 5 pound object is MORE than enough to be RELIABLY LEATHAL.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I've often heard this repeated, but is it actually true?
As much as anything in law, yes. That is to say that it is the general case, but you still get the chance to argue about it in front of a judge* if following the general rule has somehow bothered someone enough to make a harmony-threatening societal problem. Let's break down your example by each fact.
Suppose I'm in a public space...
Then you have no general expectation of privacy, but let's go on.
If someone walks up we stop talking.
Ah, but now you've provided an indication that you want privacy. Now we have a conflict of general rules.
Does this mean that someone ... with a parabolic mic can eavesdrop on my conversations...
Sure, because you're in a public place.
...(from the government) ... without a warrant?
No, because you've shown that you do not consent to their search... ...maybe.
It really depends on local precedent and established case law. Pretty much, if this ever comes up in a court, it would be a good opportunity to argue at length in front of the judge. On the one hand, you were in public, and you should be aware that any kid with a $50 toy microphone or $5 radio bug could listen to your conversation. On the other hand, the government is held to stricter rules (namely the Fourth Amendment) than a kid with a large allowance. If you're stopping for everybody, then you can argue that you aren't intending to obstruct justice or hide evidence of a crime (which might be useful justifications to sway the judge). On the other hand, you didn't check the park bench for bugs before talking, so maybe you didn't really care about more organized eavesdropping.
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.
No, the argument is whether it is reasonable to expect that your conversation would remain private. That depends a lot on the extent to which you tried to hide your conversation, and the opinions of judges in the area. Different public places have different standards for privacy.
I have every expectation of privacy if I take steps to ensure that privacy
You can expect a pony, too, but the justice system doesn't need to recognize that expectation. Rather, the key word often omitted (including in my earlier post) is that you may have a reasonable expectation of privacy... and again, that depends heavily on the local definition of "reasonable".
Does this mean that the police can video-tape the sidewalk from the window of any office building without a warrant?
In many cases, yes, and they do.
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.
That is correct. If you don't care enough about your privacy to close the drapes, then why should the court care enough to punish someone who looked in? Now, if your house was very far from the nearest public area, such that it would be unreasonable to worry about someone seeing clearly through that window, then there's room to argue that, as well.
Does that sound like a free country?
Yes. It sounds like a country where I am free to walk in a park without worrying about violating someone's privacy because I have good hearing, and where I am free to bring birdwatching equipment out to where birds are. I am free to look at my neighborhood houses, and I am free to leave my drapes in whatever state I wish. The price of that freedom is only that I must recognize others' freedoms a
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.