Slashdot Mirror
Drones Being Used By Peeping Toms, The Military, And Terrorists (newsweek.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A 19-year-old woman called Massachusetts police about a drone peeking through her second-story window at 3 a.m. -- and was told no laws had been violated. Kansas is now passing an anti-harassment law after a woman reported her neighbor's drone was hovering over their pool and outside the window where her 16-year-old daughter was washing dishes. But meanwhile, the U.S. Navy has just outfitted one supercarrier with a new drone control room, while one Dutch activist writes in Newsweek that terrorist drone attacks "are not a matter of 'If' but 'When'." Noting that drones are cheap, portable and useful, PAX's Wim Zwijnenburg warns that "Terrorists and armed militia groups are already using consumer drones in conflict situations" -- for example, in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and the Ukraine -- "and it is likely only a matter of time before they use them to carry out attacks in Europe or the U.S."
He believes ISIS is developing its own drone fleet, and warns about the possibility of swarms with "dozens of drones equipped with explosives or chemicals". Zwijnenburg proposes background checks and registrations for certain types of drones, as well as counter-drone technology to protect airports, crowded stadiums, and critical infrastructure points. Citing the blurring lines between military and civilian drones, he writes that "there needs to be an urgent and frank discussion among industry, the military, law enforcement, and most of all, the public, as to where we go from here."
Meanwhile, another prison just reported a drone had flown over their wall -- this time a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Heli Ball.
He believes ISIS is developing its own drone fleet, and warns about the possibility of swarms with "dozens of drones equipped with explosives or chemicals". Zwijnenburg proposes background checks and registrations for certain types of drones, as well as counter-drone technology to protect airports, crowded stadiums, and critical infrastructure points. Citing the blurring lines between military and civilian drones, he writes that "there needs to be an urgent and frank discussion among industry, the military, law enforcement, and most of all, the public, as to where we go from here."
Meanwhile, another prison just reported a drone had flown over their wall -- this time a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Heli Ball.
A garden hose defense system?
Depends where you are. This is already covered under existing law here. What's visible through the windows with your own eye from public property or your own property is fair game to look at, but any sort of assistance or effort to conceal your looking is illegal. So, drones would almost certainly already qualify under current legislation for that.
.....under President Trump.
He has been sent by God.
'Noting that drones are cheap, portable and useful, PAX's Wim Zwijnenburg warns that "Terrorists and armed militia groups are already using consumer drones in conflict situations" -- for example, in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and the Ukraine -- "and it is likely only a matter of time before they use them to carry out attacks in Europe or the U.S."'
Funny that, isn't it? What goes around, comes around. Militarists and secret police have drones designed to their specification, so that Mr Obama can draw up lists of people who are to die without trial, warrant, or warning from the comfort of his residence. And then - waddya know - those damned terrorists are using drones themselves. It's so unfair!
But that's how huge organizations like governments rock. Robert Conquest's Third Law of Politics:
"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies".
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Drones are noisy. If there's one hovering outside your window, you'll know about it! And anyway, if you point a camera at a window in most light conditions, you're not likely to see much beyond reflections. Also, the cameras on most quadcopters have wide-angle lenses - great for navigation and landscape photography, but no use for spying on people.
But if you're really worried about they looking through your windows, close the bloody curtains/blinds. And if the drone noise is a real annoyance, call the cops, rather than getting the local gun nut to shoot it down...
If somebody really wants to spy on you, they'll find better ways to do it. Even something as crude as a cellphone on a stick is going to be more effective than a noisy quadcopter.
...idiot drone users who force the creation of idiotic drone laws. Seriously, how hard it is to respect other people's privacy and property any way? Public roads are clearly marked in most developed countries.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
They should have used the Leonardo drone; it would have saved them four bucks.
CIWS like Phalanx, firing rapid fire birdshot.
Usually this translates into "hype and scare them into supporting our ban for private use".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I learned that people own the airspace directly above their property up to some reasonably low value.
About 300 feet or so. However, a drone hovering outside a kitchen window or second-story bedroom window is fair game for the water hose, paintball gun or shotgun.
"A 19-year-old woman called Massachusetts police about a drone peeking through her second-story window at 3 a.m. -- and was told no laws had been violated. "
I'd shoot it down then. No ifs, ands, or buts.
...where we have laws against using technical means to watch others who are in protected areas.
Basically anyone can use things like drones, cameras and so on in the public places and similar(where there is no expectation of privacy), but using anything technical to look into someone's home(and some other locations) is forbidden. The protection of homes is actually pretty strong in other things too.
And yes this includes old ladies with binoculars peeping.
A fun case was when some old biddy complained to the police about someone stretching in their 3rd floor window nude that she can see clearly with her binoculars from across a park and she was the only one charged with a crime since she was using a technical device(the binoculars) to secretly look into a protected area(The other person's home).
Terr'ists using the same stuff as everyone else! Quick! Panik!
I see only one solution. Make it illegal for terrorists to use drones!
(And while we are at it, maybe we could get them to apply for a permit for each terror attack.)
Why "new"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think that these are the situations were I would condone pointing a laser at a flying object. If it ruins the video camera on the drone, then the peeping tom will learn to be a little more careful about where he peeps.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Bogey's Law alert: Gov. says there's link between drones and pedophiles, terrorists, commies, and satanists. Fear the drone. The drone is bad. The drone will eat your children. Oh by the way, in light of how bad drones are, we just have a few suggestions for new laws to combat this greatest-threat-ever. All drones must be registered with the government. All drone pilots must be registered with the government. All drone makers must be registered with the government. Anyone caught manufacturing a drone without a license will be charged with a felony. We could just keep going with this.
Drones Being Used By Peeping Toms, The Military, And Terrorists
You repeat yourself.
It's a certainty that at some point the bad guys of this world will start using CRISPR. This makes it doubly important that the good guys get good at using it.
A 19-year-old woman called Massachusetts police about a drone peeking through her second-story window at 3 a.m. -- and was told no laws had been violated.
Um, no.
If you click through the stories, this is the one that's being referred to. There's even a video.
But here's the thing ... all the video shows is a flashing light. You can't even hear it. I imagine her eyes were better than her cell phone camera at night vision and so there was something there, but there's no evidence whatsoever of it "peeking through her window" here. There's not even any evidence that it had a camera.
If that was a quadcopter and it was close -- it was a tiny toy one, and the tiny ones that have cameras have cameras that are even crappier than the one in her phone. So if it was taking pictures -- they're probably just as revealing as the one she took of it, and there's no evidence that pictures were taken at all.
And going even beyond how crappily the cameras work at night, this guy made a video showing how close you have to be to see anything -- and he's doing it with high end gear and it's daytime except when he uses the *really* expensive non-hobbyist multicopter with an IR camera. He has to be really, really close to even recognize somebody with his high end gear -- like ten feet away, close enough that it wouldn't be stealthy at all.
If the police said that no laws were violated, what they probably really said is that "there's no evidence that a law was violated". Simply having it over your yard doesn't break the law, just like a 747 flying over your yard doesn't break the law. Actually doing peeping tom stuff -- *that's actually against the law*, but there's no evidence that happened. Also, the article says nothing of "peeping" -- that was added by the other article, and then it got upgraded to "peeping tom" by the /. story.
I occasionally fly mine at night around my house. Not usually at 3am because I'm asleep by then, but 10pm, sure. Usually it's to test some repairs or something that I did. If it has a camera, there's no point in hooking it up or turning it on because the images will look like the video in the article, and I'm not there to take pictures anyway -- I'm to test something or just toodle around. There's nothing nefarious about it.
But all in all ... I don't see evidence of anybody doing any peeping tom stuff here.
Have an arduino or something that can listen for drones and upon hearing them, automatically lower blinds with goatse printed on the outside!
Most likely, the cops said "no laws were violated" because they are not going to be bothered at 3 am to do anything. For that matter, they would probably not be bothered at 3 pm either. At least that's how it is where i live.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
I have been flying RC aircraft and helis for 35 years, or so. I would have never even thought of flying one of my craft anywhere near someone else's property unless I went and talked to the property owner beforehand. Most people didn't care, in fact, and would come out to watch and ask questions. Some were not so receptive and I always respected their wishes as they were the owners of the property, not me. For me, anything that flies below my roof line is fair gain. I would just feign surprise at the improbability of their drone coming down. Proving malicious intent would be impossible. Civil suit? Pardon me while yawn.
The villification through fear-based propaganda of civilian ownership & use of drones has begun in earnest.
First, villify, then regulate, then outlaw.
That's the same playbook as those who would like a gun ban implemented use, except there's that pesky 2nd Amendment in the way with guns.
Fortunately for them, there's no such protection for drones, so they are free to proceed with the push to heavily regulate most drones & owners, and outright ban some types/uses of drones (typically the most useful as bureaucrats are wont to do).
The propaganda program to gin-up fear is the first step.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
A reasonably low value would be the range at which a shotgun can bring down a drone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In the future, drones may be used for peaceful demonstrations.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Maybe it was a typo and the story was supposed to read "Phones Being Used By Peeping Toms, The Military, And Terrorists". I think we should regulate phones. I mean, they have cameras and GPSs and stuff in them!
You know, the article actually explains why they said no laws were violated --
Blanchette said that it's not illegal to fly a drone over someone's property, but once it lands on the ground or the roof, it's considered an invasion of space.
The original article said nothing of "peeping toms" -- that assumption was added later.
In any event, it sounds like the video was showed to them during business hours rather than at 3am.
Also, if they really didn't want to do anything, they wouldn't say this --
Agawam Police said that if something like this does happen again to the DiCioccio family - or anyone else in town - contact them immediately. They don't want anyone to be put in this uncomfortable situation again.
Sounds to me that they'd like to do something. That said, if they were able to investigate while the guy was still flying maybe they could find evidence of "peeping tom" activities, if that was actually happening. (It's unlikely, since this would do such a poor job of it, but it's not entirely impossible.)
In any event, given that it's probably one of their neighbors -- they may seem him flying again and get to ask him about it.
I'm not even Ukranian, but I know to call the country "Ukraine", not "The Ukraine". Putin wants you to call it "The Ukraine", indicating it's part of Russia.