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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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!
First, let's be clear: I don't like the new law. I think it goes too far by requiring the consent of all present rather than just the landowner, which would be entirely reasonable. But you need to work on your argument.
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.
Technology moves. You say that today, but tomorrow, there probably will be zoom. The technical problems are well understood. This isn't a useful argument to make, because it isn't likely to remain true over any useful length of time (if it even is true; I didn't bother seeing if someone has already done it).
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.
I don't care about your excuses. I think you should be banned from flying over a property if the property owner deems he doesn't want you flying over his property, and further, I think a property owner should have the right to shoot your toy out of the sky and send you a bill for the bullet. I'd actually make it a criminal charge with a minimum $50,000 fine. I'd make it so expensive and difficult for you to play with your little kiddy toys over my property that you'd finally just go fucking home.
Self entitled assholes like you have made it clear the only way to deal with drones is to make it so damaging for assholes like you to even fly one that you find some other toys to play with
There'd be a lot fewer wedding party fatalities if Afghanistan implemented this law...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
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.
They're working on "follow" drones. Set it to lead, follow, or orbit and it'll track you. Or, more accurately, it'll track the device you're carrying.
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.
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.]
A female friend doesn't want to take a certain bus any more because it goes through some rough areas and last year all the way home three guys were putting their hands in front of her face saying "I'm not touching you". She was pretty scared.
The drone users claiming they have a right to fly (and more importantly that this right shouldn't be limited) remind me of those guys.
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.]
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!
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.
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.
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.
It's not draconian, and the new drone rules are just existing model-aircraft rules modified a bit for drones. Basically, you can fly from/over private property without any problems (e.g. your own house, your farm, etc). If you want to launch your model aircraft, and now drone, from somewhere like a public park you need to check that it's OK (so you don't fly your whatsit into the middle of a bunch of kids playing, but in any case many places have blanket OK's for flying, not just parks but school playing fields on weekends or with a teacher present to supervise, that sort of thing). You can't fly into controlled airspace (around airports), outside LoS (formulated for model aircraft, before you had onboard live video feeds), or above a certain height.
The Slashdot submission is a nice piece of sensationalism, but really all the rule is doing is formally extending the generally sensible rules for model aircraft to cover drones as well.
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.