Slashdot Mirror
Kentucky's Shotgun 'Drone Slayer' Gets Sued Again (yahoo.com)
"Technology has surpassed the law..." argues a Kentucky man who fired a shotgun at a drone last year. An anonymous Slashdot reader reports:
The drone's owner has now filed for damages in Federal Court over the loss of his $1,800 drone, arguing that the shotgun blast was unjustified because his drone wasn't actually trespassing or invading anyone's privacy. The defendant -- who has dubbed himself 'the Drone Slayer' -- said the aerial vehicle was over his garden and his daughter, and the verdict could ultimately set a new precedent in U.S. law: who owns the air?
"Operators need to know where they can fly," argued the drone pilot's lawyer, "and owners must know when they can reasonably expect privacy and be free of prying eyes." He estimates a drone is shot from he skies about once a month, and "What happens typically is that law enforcement doesn't know what to do and civil suits are uncommon as most people don't want to get involved due to the costs."
The Drone Slayer was originally charged with felony counts of wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. But all of those charges were dismissed in October when a district judge ruled he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft."
"Operators need to know where they can fly," argued the drone pilot's lawyer, "and owners must know when they can reasonably expect privacy and be free of prying eyes." He estimates a drone is shot from he skies about once a month, and "What happens typically is that law enforcement doesn't know what to do and civil suits are uncommon as most people don't want to get involved due to the costs."
The Drone Slayer was originally charged with felony counts of wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. But all of those charges were dismissed in October when a district judge ruled he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft."
How about if the drone is vertically close enough to your private property that you CAN succesfully shoot it, then its too close and doing so is allowed. (Excluding sniper rifles)
"and owners must know when they can reasonably expect privacy and be free of prying eyes."
Lawyer acts like he's doing a fucking public service. What a crusader for truth and justice. How about - AT ALL TIMES when I'm home, fucker. Hah, it's not like he cares, he's getting paid either way.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'm with the man shooting the drones. Fuck off outside of the city with that shit or into a park. Anyone can say they aren't spying with their drones, including those who spy; and drones are becoming more and more dangerous as cartels and gangs are starting to use them.
You didn't see me running an RC car and my chopper all over the fucking city when i was a kid, i had the decency to keep that shit in-house, in the garden, or in a park.
I'm not sure how you can argue it was not invading privacy when it was downed with a shotgun. The maximum effective range is around 75 yards and you can pretty much shoot at people 300 yards away and pose no danger (do not do this obviously). If the wreckage was examined you could know roughly how close it was to the shotgun without resorting to any telemetry from the drone captured prior to it being downed.
While the law may be somewhat incomplete, you are an asshole if you fly a drone close people or their dwelling on their property. Get permission from the property owner first, it seems to be the ease of use of drones and the entitled attitudes some few people have ruined it for everyone and make new laws necessary.
Drone advocates can act as clueless as they wish but it is already established what we own. Up to 500ft. If building a structure less than 500 ft (Actually this was amended to 499) you need no clearance from the FAA. There is so much precedent on this that no ignorance can be taken seriously. Weather towers over less than 500ft are provided some guidance by the FAA but the FAA states this is only a helpful guideline to assist in safety for cropdusters. This feigned cluelessness by drone advocates is the same as all the cluelessness we have seen when some established rules are suddenly questioned just because the internet is involved. It's 500 ft. Ownership is a somewhat improper term. Property rights is a better term. You have the right to build unimpeded to 500 ft. Beyond this you need special clearance. This rude and boorish posturing by drone advocates would have us believe that you could build a foundation on your property then cantilever one foot off the ground such that the rest of the building was almost entirely over your neighbor's property. Pure and obvious rubbish from the drone operators.
Is he speeding in your yard? Parked illegally in your daughters favourite suntanning spot? Didn't think so.
Federal authority over flight rules is likely the federal question.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Sounds like a lawyer is using this as a way to get his name in the papers. I'd bet he contacted the drone owners and convinced them.
Was he sued before?
I think that drone operator was trying to spy on the girl and is now playing the victim.
There was no other reason to be hovering over that man's property.
If a lawyer did, it is probably an ethics violation.
And in the unlikely event someone reports him for an ethics violation we'll get a strongly worded warning that if he does it again he'll get another strongly worded warning.
WTF? All the links point to other Slashdot posting from over a year ago.
There is no new information here.
There's a fundamental difference between these so called drones and RC planes or choppers. Drone operators aren't interested in "piloting" . The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos and once that's the intention it changes the whole flight.
I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera. Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.
http://mp3oni.wapka.mobi/
"Who owns the air?"
There is no need to establish precedent, it's already been done. Prior to the 20th century property owner's rights extended infinitely upward, but in the 20th century as air travel became commonplace, Congress established property rights up to 500' above a person's property or 300' above the tallest building whichever is higher. Above that the FAA controls it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States
If the drone was over this guy's property, and it was close enough for a shotgun to take it out, then the drone operator legally trespassed on his property via already well established law, and he was within his rights.
Well, the law disagrees with you. It doesn't, however, work like people here think it does. There isn't a line in the sky saying "this far, no farther". It depends on the nature and intent of the intrusion.
For example I've flown in a helicopter belonging to the Florida Keys Mosquito Control district. Those spray jockeys' job is to lay down pesticide on hard to reach places, particularly the first place a mosquito might light after crossing between islands which is likely to be a line of mangroves or bushes. They're accustomed to flying *low*. En route between Stock Island and Marathon Key we flew so low over peoples' houses I could certainly have told what magazines they left out by the pool -- if we hadn't been going over 100 mph. It's just normal business for those guys, and they're not targeting those homeowners in any way. But if we'd hovered over his house to ogle his teenage daughter, that would be an intrusion, apart from the epic noise.
This isn't really different from privacy law in general: context and intent matter. If someone is standing behind you at the ATM, that's not necessarily breach of privacy; but if they are doing it to look over your shoulder that's different. If your neighbor looks at the back of your house, it's normal. If he sits in his tree trying to peer through your back windows, it's not.
One of the landmark cases in privacy was Nader v.General Motors Corp. where GM retaliated against Nader for writing unkind things about its cars by hiring private investigators to dig up dirt and intimidate Nader. One of the things they did to intimidate him was to follow him around all day, often openly following him a few feet behind as he went about his business so he'd know he was being constantly watched. The court ruled this was an invasion of privacy. Sure the PIs had a right to be in the places they went, but they didn't have a right to be there doing what they were doing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Does it matter if the drone operator was in the wrong? That does not give the hillbilly permission to shoot it. How about the next time his pickup truck exceeds the speed limit or parks illegally, we set it on fire. Is that OK?
Living in 21st century 'Murrica, other questions come to mind, If a person sees a human powered airplane or helicopter over their property, and believes the pilots are spying on his teenage daughter, does that mean that the guy in Kentucky has the right to shoot down the flying device?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
if we'd hovered over his house to ogle his teenage daughter
I never read anything that indicated the drone was 'ogling' the daughter.
I have two UAVs and use them for real estate aerial photography and to take pictures of people's houses for them (It's something that people do up here in Nova Scotia). I have to sometimes fly over other people property to get the correct viewpoint or angle and I only need permission to take off or land on somebody's property. If they have an issue with anything I'm doing they have the right to contact the RCMP. This has happened to me twice. On both occasions I showed the officer my documentation and insurance and the matter was dropped.
I think that people should be required to register their UAVs in the States, it will go a long way in ensuring that people understand what they can and can't do with their UAVs. People should also STOP calling them 'drones' because of the negative connotations with that word, it's instantly associated with spying which is NOT a good thing.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
The drone's owner has now filed for damages in Federal Court over the loss of his $1,800 drone, arguing that the shotgun blast was unjustified because his drone wasn't actually trespassing or invading anyone's privacy.
The Drone Slayer was originally charged with felony counts of wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. But all of those charges were dismissed in October when a district judge ruled he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft."
It's true the Federal government has sole jurisdiction over US airspace, but that only applies to airspace above 499 feet. Furthermore, Causby v United States states that a landowner's domain extends at least up to 385 feet in rural areas.
The root problem here IS NOT whether or not you can shoot aircraft, or where you should be able to fly drones, but whether or not it is legal to be a belligerent asshole. Even if the drone was over the shooter's property, was he in immediate danger? Doubtful. Would shooting it be effective way to protect himself if he was? About as effective as shooting the tires of a car headed for you. So then the only real thing he did was piss off his neighbour. That's not the way civilized adults should be handling their problems. Just like it was inappropriate for my neighbour to introduce himself by assaulting me and causing thousands in property damage, because he claimed my mufflered motorcycle was too loud and that's how asshole's solve their problems. INSTEAD we could try having a conversation about it. Then maybe I'd gear up instead of down everytime I drove by from then on, or flown my drone elsewhere instead of suing.
I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera. Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.
It's funny how you stereotype people who enjoy something extremely similar to what you do. There's plenty of people who enjoy drone flight for the sole purpose of flying, though the camera remains an integral part of the experience since it allows you to see your drone's movement from the first person. There's even drone agility competitions which are all about maneuvering drones on extremely difficult courses, not filming. Drones just have the ability to also take beautiful shots from high on up, but that's not necessarily their sole purpose.
They're accustomed to flying *low*. En route between Stock Island and Marathon Key we flew so low over peoples' houses I could certainly have told what magazines they left out by the pool -- if we hadn't been going over 100 mph.
Don't get your point.
In most civilized countries exactly this is forbidden. And I would bet in a big deal of the USA as well.
So just he can get away with it makes it not "common law" or even allowed by the law.
Minimum flight height is several hundred yards (depending on local legislation), unless you are spraying, in process of taking off or landing.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
does that mean that the guy (you meant "yahoo", right?) in Kentucky has the right to shoot down the flying device?
As you mentioned Kentucky explicitly, I would say: YESssss!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The answer to the federal question is easy. Get a few of these drones flying over the White House and see if anybody complains. Done.
The FAA has already designated a 30-mile-wide circle around the White House as a No Fly Zone - with serious penalties if you operate there. Bad example. You are not "done."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I think that people should be required to register their UAVs in the States
This is already the law, if the machine is over .55 pounds. So even small toys must be registered.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I totally agree on the fpv aspect. If you're flying and not hovering in people's back yard ;)
There's a fundamental difference between these so called drones and RC planes or choppers. Drone operators aren't interested in "piloting" . The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos and once that's the intention it changes the whole flight.
but...
I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera.
...yeah see, there's the problem. You can do the same stuff with an RC aircraft. So what, does that mean we should aggressively control everything that's not attached to a control line? Wait, you can use a kite for aerial photography, we're going to have to think this through a little more...
FPV is showing up on everything now, because FPV is now cheap. So if you want to argue that FPV should be the differentiator you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is already the law, if the machine is over .55 pounds. So even small toys must be registered.
No, you are not even close. You have the number right, but none of the other facts. The drone operator must be registered, and he puts his UAS number on all of his remotely controlled flying machines over .55lb. Over 55lb, models require FAA registration just like an airplane, with a tail number and everything.
The FAA has just recently set up the guidelines for becoming a commercial drone pilot; prior to this if you wanted to engage in commercial activities with a drone, you were legally obligated to get a N-number just like a real airplane and put it on there in such a way that it was legible from the ground and all that jazz. Now that obligation has been relaxed in favor of a testing, registration, and background check process which appears to be heavily slanted towards the operation of fixed-wing drones and helicopters (as in, with a swashplate, not just any unicopter) as the test covers a lot of material that's quite irrelevant to operators of multicopters. There's only one type of registration and it covers you for anything you might want to fly. I believe (I'm a bit shaky on this news stuff) that within the size range, you only have to put your UAS label on the model, and you don't need a tail number.
Also, you are I hope aware that there are now FPV drones under .55lb?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You miss my point: the law doesn't paint a bright line; it weighs factors like intent, circumstances and method.
Flying over other peoples' property in order to get to your target is a different set of circumstances than poking around on that person's property.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Oh, for pete's sake you can't shoot people for trespassing on your property either, but that doesn't mean your property is fair game for anyone who wants to tramp around on it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Fpv has been here for a long time. Why do you think this privacy thing just came out now?
It's the wrong intent that makes the real drone users look bad. My friend uses them to video shoot real estate for sale. And went through the right channels to get permission to hover in a residential area.
There are many fun things that we want to do. But it affects other people's feelings and that's why we don't do them. I would love to hover in people's backyard in fpv too but I don't do it because it invades people backyard. Not even privacy. Just the same as I don't sit on people's porch and have a smoke.
Parked illegally on your propoerty? Tow it away and no problems. And no, you're not required to tell him where it was towed to. Set it on fire? Generally, setting ANYTHING on fire without a permit is illegal, so I wouldn't try that. Though if you left your pickup in front of my aunt's house, she'd set it on fire in a heartbeat. And dump the leftovers into the pond....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Good luck with the orientation of a DJI without camera then ;)
Fpv has been here for a long time.
It cost thousands to do well until recently. Now it's down to just a few hundred. That's transformative.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Drone cost $1,800 and then court + legal fees = $73,200
TL;DR version: The "dystopian future has really arrived" because the US Supreme court disagrees with you.
your own house and garden suddenly become public places where your asshole neighbor can film you and your children
It's not happening suddenly. It happened twenty years ago.
Annoying people is sometimes illegal, sometimes not, but the law doesn't (and shouldn't) consider using "shitty tech gadgets" any worse than lawnmowers, drums, or a ladder. At the same time, the US has strong legal protection for people who want to take pictures, videos or otherwise gather information. You can't make it generally illegal do those things without infringing on the freedom of the press.
All the discussion about drones specifically is due to the human tendency to see actions as being tied to tools. It is the same fallacy that drives laws to be disproportionate where a crime is done "with a computer." Even if you get laws to protect your privacy in your back yard "from drones," you will still have your privacy invaded completely legally by people with actual airplanes, or ladders, or model airplanes, or mini-blimps.
The core issue is defining what the law should treat as your right to privacy. (Not what tools people might use to infringe on it.) So far, the courts have determined that you have property rights extending about to shotgun height above your property and you have the right to privacy where you are not visible or try to keep yourself from being visible from public property. (The air above your backyard is public property at sufficient altitude.) For example, it's perfectly legal to take pictures of your neighbors if they're in front of an open window (or their backyard.) It's illegal to take the same picture if they have blinds on their windows which are failing to actually hide the people on the other side. (Indeed, you in some states, even being naked at home in front of an open window is illegal.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Test that theory. Print this part of the page out, take it to your next drone meeting, and ask everyone to prove bronney wrong by taping over their camera. Have every person fly simply for the pleasure of seeing a drone fly.
Let us know what percentage of your fellow operators are purists.
PS. I know this reads as pure snark, but I only mean it as one quarter snark, and three quarters real challenge of your claim.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
If you can only find one counter example out of millions of people, his statement is close enough to truth as to make no difference.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Online Forum Pro-Tip: When you write "'Murrica," you betray your classist prejudice, weaken your argument, and reveal yourself as a hipster lightweight.
Or I can be sarcastic. Sarcasm has nothing to do with hipsterism, more to dealing with people who find that using deadly force is fun.
One most interesting thing is that you manage to make some claims, about my Hipsterism and the AV club, you manage to do a whole psyche workup on me. Odd. You'd be real surprised to find out what I actually am. But I'll leave that to your febrile imagination.
Kind RobotRunAmok, when we try to determine what another person is with precious little information, and based upon an incorrect assumption in the first place, we tend to engage in projection.
And when we completely ignore the reasonable question that comes along with the sarcasm, we manage to project even more. You give me much more info about yourself than I ever gave you.
Back to the meat of my comment, completely ignored in your snarkalicious reply:
In this case, we most certainly do have a property rights issue. Do you own the airspace above your house?
This is not just a simple drone issue. If you own the property rights to the airspace, anyone entering it is trespassing. Police will need a warrant to fly over it. You will be able to claim "stand your ground" laws if a Ultralight flies over your property, and you terminate the pilot, armed or unarmed.
How much leeway is there? If you fear you are being spied on, do you have a perimeter off your property that will serve as a "grace area" if you stand your ground and shoot down a drone, that turns out to not be on your property?
Do you have the right to shoot down a drone on the drone owner's property is you fear the drone on the drone owner's property is spying on you?
Do you have the right to terminate the drone owner if oyu see he is flying his drone over your property?
And in a country where more people are willing to use firearms as a first resort, perhaps such conversations are worth having. But you just fixate on "'Murrica", and become the dude who on Netnews a few years ago that declares someone's argument null and void because of a spelling mistake. A great way to move the conversation forwards. Thanks for playing, anyhow.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos
No it isn't. I rarely use the non-transmitting crappy camera on my drone. I fly it because it's fun to fly.
Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.
No, some.
Of course the ones who've bought drones with good cameras are more likely to have bought them specifically to get video. But it won't be exclusive, and there are plenty of people with drones with no camera at all.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
And yet RobotRunAmok is correct.
No he isn't. He took one simple sarcasm, and tried to do a psyche writup on me, which was completely incorrect. Then he added declarations on me being a Hipster, and a member of the High school AV club.
I was being sarcastic, he was making incorrect declarations, possibly based on projection. Regardless, he completely ignored the salient part of my post, which makes for some interesting discussions.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Depends on where you ae. Here it's not. You can't even sit in your car across the street from your own house to spy on whether your spouse is cheating on you - and for that all you have to see is who enters or leaves the house, not what goes on inside.
We also put restraints on private investigators so that they are no longer allowed to spy on people either.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You take a chain an pull the car into the middle of the street, facing the wrong way and blocking traffic, then call the cops (I know a neighbor who did that). Or, you put it into an area where they're about to dig up the streets and gas mains. Half an hour later, they can't get to their car because all the asphalt around it is dug up and they're waiting on the tow truck to haul it off (I did that - statute of limitations is over. Moral of the story - don't block someone's loading dock in the middle of the day because someone might ask me to "fix" the problem with a coat hanger :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
As you said there need to be a forensic examination to determine that, as it could have been a 45Â shot above his property limit downing the drone outside (so 40 feet or 12-15 meter outside the property).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Generalize much?
I own several drones, most of them can't use a camera. The one that has a camera is for FPV, don't know if it's even possible to record with it.
---- Sig. gone.
This. The thing that most technical nerds (myself included) forget, is that the law is heavily constructed around intent. Doing the exact same things with different intent is different in the eyes of the law.
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
Oh, for pete's sake you can't shoot people for trespassing on your property either, but that doesn't mean your property is fair game for anyone who wants to tramp around on it.
That's a pretty great analogy, though. I wouldn't argue that invading someone's privacy or even just noise polluting their airspace isn't being a dickhead. I'd only argue that shooting down a drone with a shotgun when you could start a fire is being a stupid dickhead. It's also unnecessary. Odds are someone is just GPS drifting. If you think otherwise, gather some evidence like an adult. Nine times out of ten, the drone pilot is your neighbor, not a bunch of houses over. The further you get away from home around other people's houses and thus potential sources of interference with both your TX signal and with GPS, the greater the chance you're going to wind up leaving it in their yard or on their roof.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If our mere servants are afforded such protection then it seems obvious that we can defend our own property.
On what basis?
Another way to see this is that the 30 mile zone wouldn't exist if there were no problem with flying drones over each other's houses.
Again, on what basis?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You could use a trampoline to jump high enough to see over a privacy fence. Omg burn all trampolines!
Does it matter if the drone operator was in the wrong? That does not give the hillbilly permission to shoot it.
Why not? In most countries you are legally allowed to shoot game birds which are on your property provided that you do it safely. This even applies if the birds have been fed and raised and used to stock a piece of land for hunting e.g. pheasant woods in the UK. If the birds leave your land and fly over a neighbours that neighbour is allowed to shoot and keep the birds. If you fly a drone over someone else's private property why should the same rules not apply provided that it is shot in a safe manner?
You really are an ignorant, bigoted asshole, clearly spurting out nonsense in a bid to gain attention for your own ego purposes, hypocritically projecting on a daily basis to satiate your need to not feel that people think of you the way you are. You do this pattern of behavior every day on slashdot.
Every damn day with your hate, ignorance, and ego. No substance. No positive points save for the sycophantic mods by people that behave the same as you. I'd imagine quite easily that people out in the real world avoid you for this behavior.
Thak you. Pissing people off like you is one of my little joys in life. The more iirritate you, the more I validate myself.
Now that you are on the hook, let's roll, dear Coward. Game on?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You could use a trampoline to jump high enough to see over a privacy fence. Omg burn all trampolines!
Or at least, allow people in Kentucky to shoot at them when their heads appear above the fence!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Funny because my drone does not have a camera and I still enjoy flying it, I have a DJI Phantom 1. My kids have the really small drones, and they fly those all the time.
I have a DJI Phantom 1 which does not have camera and I fly it just fine. There are lights on the bottom that tell you which direction it is facing. It also have a really nice switch that sets the drone into "Controller Lock" mode which means it will always fly in the same direction when you press forward, no matter what way the drone is facing.
The over .55, under 55 pound RC aircraft must carry a registration number in plain site. If you own four of them, all four must carry that number. If you operate under part 107, all of your RC devices need their own unique registration codes. These aren't "guidelines," these are rules now formally in place with serious consequences should you blow them off.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The over .55, under 55 pound RC aircraft must carry a registration number in plain site.
Nope. It just has to be easily accessible. It can be inside a battery door if the cover doesn't screw on.
If you own four of them, all four must carry that number.
Yes. Which drives home the point that this is not a registration number for your model aircraft, but for the operator.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If they're trespassing for the purpose of burglarizing my property, I most certainly can shoot them. Even if they're fleeing the scene.
Missouri's "castle doctrine" law is a doozy.
In response to the rising threat of technology, we we will be raising the bar of entry into this field by requiring licensing on a per unit basis. If that's not enough to keep you normies from building aircraft yourselves, we will just have to make big scary noises and look really worried until your neighbors start shooting the things from the sky!
Silly civilians, don't you know that airspace and spying are for government and fortune 500 companies only? How dare you plebs build your own technology platform and attempt to use your obviously dangerous and scary creation in our skies. It's.....It's.... It's.... um... Ah HA! Its invasion of privacy! See!? Even your peers are not having this! We all know we are so interesting that you just cannot help yourself to taking a peek over our high walls. Why, just the other day another one of your scary death-copters was heroically shot from the skies behind my tennis court. The falling hardware could have damaged my new Tesla...er.. I mean kid, could have damaged my CHILD!... could have damaged YOUR CHILDREN! THREE CHEERS FOR THE DRONE SLAYER!
Drones are toys for the scaryiorist and pedophiles, now get back in line. Traffic is heavy today and you still have another 8 hours of productivity quota to meet.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Them city folks just said its ok fer ussin to be shootin up all them low flyin aeroplanes. Turns out them city-slickers been peepin out them windows into yonder bathroom window while grampa's a-poopin.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
"Plain sight," as in "you don't need tools to get to it." The sort of thing any FAA inspector could simply walk over and easily see/get to.
Otherwise, semantics. You can't fly your over 9-ounce toy, at all, unless it bears your registration information. The uniqueness of the registration between someone's multiple toys is neither here nor there. It's "you can't fly your toy without federal involvement and a way to track the toy back to you via a publicly searchable database." That's what matters.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Just don't fly over someone's property without permission, it's that easy.. Also make sure you get permission if you point the camera at windows or balconies (especially if you're (live) streaming) etc..
Because YOU like flying drones doesn't mean you should be able to do it anywhere you want..
So, if he is, you have the right to destroy the truck?
Guys! This is awesome! Now all it takes is for one guy to fly a drone without a camera into "Drone Slayer"'s backyard. Hold hover for a few minutes and let him shoot it down. Then sue.
Profit??
Of course I know there are people flying without camera for enjoyment but those aren't the ones doing his backyard. The ones who fly it for fun for the joy of flying do it in safe areas, unlike me where a crash could have injured someone: Bad Example.
Not me. I'm not a stalker. I wanted to get as far away from my ex as possible - turned out I was the one being stalked.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Nets, eagles, arrows...the next big thing is a drone killer that doesn't leave a trail. Damn sure the enemy is working on this but it won't be long until we have to work on this against whatever mutual enemy we have. In GOT they shot ravens as they left the castles. We're probably not that far removed from the Middle Ages, at least as far as drones are concerned. I'm guessing the next multi-billionaire warlord will be selling drone killers.
Consumer drones have become interwoven with paranoia about weaponized military drones.
The questions are uncomfortable, are they not?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I thought I read somewhere that a person's personal "property" extends 500 feet into the air.
Rofl,
no the questions are not uncomfortable.
I'm not an american and find the idea that so many of you run around with firearms the main reason why I rather fly with Elon Musk to Mars than visit the Grand Canyon.
I wonder why you don't feel uncomfortable to live in a "kind of" first world country where gun violence is on the level of Somalia.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.