Drone Pilot Arrested After Flying Over Two Stadiums, Dropping Leaflets (cbslocal.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Drone Pilot Arrested After Flying Over Two Stadiums, Dropping Leaflets (cbslocal.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday December 2, 2017 @05:34AM from the no-fly-zones dept.

"A man with an anti-media agenda was arrested in Oakland after he flew a drone over two different stadiums to drop leaflets" last Sunday, writes Slashdot reader execthis. A local CBS station reports: According to investigators, [55-year-old Tracy] Mapes piloted his drone over Levi's Stadium during the second quarter of the 49ers-Seattle game and released a load of pamphlets. He then quickly landed the drone, loaded it up and drove over to Oakland. He flew a similar mission over the Raiders-Broncos game. Santa Clara Police Lt. Dan Moreno said after Mapes was apprehended he defended the illegal action as a form of free speech.
USA Today reports there's now also an ongoing federal investigation "because the Federal Aviation Administration prohibits the flying of drones within five miles of an airport. Both Levi's Stadium and Oakland Coliseum are within that range."

"The San Francisco Chronicle added that the drone was a relatively ineffective messenger because 'most of the drone-dropped leaflets were carried away by the wind.'"

108 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes you can have free speech but you cannot break laws in expressing that. Are people really this stupid these days?
1. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by CaptainDork · 2017-12-02 05:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That phrase does not mean what you think it does.
  It means that you can't be arrested for talking trash about the government.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
2. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by DontBeAMoran · 2017-12-02 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  “It was something about free speech and his belief that television stations are corrupt,” said Santa Clara Police Lt. Dan Moreno.
  Television stations can be corrupt without any government implications.
  Also, I wonder if Lt. Dan Moreno owns any Monero.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
3. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming that AC and you are both referring to the First Amendment to the US Constitution (and that you are not being snarky), AC is closer to correct than you.
4. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by TimSSG · 2017-12-02 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  Yes you can have free speech but you cannot break laws in expressing that. Are people really this stupid these days?
  I think freedom of the press would be more on target; but, you still can be arrested for breaking the law while using the freedom of the press. Tim S.
5. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  You are completely wrong actually. Several court cases where defendants were arrested for breaking some bullshit law (loitering for example) because they were protesting the government. Cops don't care you're just a perp they can arrest.
  So - that would make you the stupid one Cheeto.
6. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 06:32 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  Fuck you. And while we're at it, fuck you again.
  I knew exactly what I was voting for with Trump. Some of it is not so good. Some of it is great, like building a wall, deporting illegals, attacking globalism, and pissing off mentally deficient snowflakes like you.
7. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  Unless your a member of the 1%, tRump and the Republicans just screwed EVERYONE in the nation. Thanks for screwing everyone by voting for tRump.
8. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by ShanghaiBill · 2017-12-02 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  But would he have been arrested for flying the drone if he had not dropped leaflets? It is likely that hundreds of people fly drones within 5 miles of SFO or OAK everyday. How many of them are arrested? Selective enforcement of the law can be a form of oppression.
9. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  Okay there Ivan. You forgot to mention the DNC! Sad!
10. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Corbets · 2017-12-02 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Youâ(TM)re absolutely right. Ideally weâ(TM)d arrest all drone operators and string em up, but until weâ(TM)re able to do that, weâ(TM)ll have to settle for selective enforcement.
11. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by PopeRatzo · 2017-12-02 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  It means that you can't be arrested for talking trash about the government.
  No, it doesn't. It means government can't make any laws that would prevent you from exercising free speech.
  But free speech doesn't mean you get to break other laws while exercising your free speech.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
12. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by Aighearach · 2017-12-02 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  "Selective enforcement" can be a form of oppression, but when they are "selectively" doing enforcement against the people whose crime attracts the most attention, then it isn't. It just means he was an idiot for brazenly doing something that you have to do quietly to get away with.
13. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  So they can make laws that prevent you from making free speech as long as they say it's for something else.
  Won't somebody please think of the child airplanes?
14. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by PopeRatzo · 2017-12-02 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  So they can make laws that prevent you from making free speech as long as they say it's for something else.
  No. Let me put it in terms you can understand. Think of it like this. You can hire a big truck with a sign on it that says, "Whites are Superior". That's legal. But if you run that truck over a bunch of mud people, you have broken the law, even though you were exercising your free speech at the time. Just because you were in the act of exercising free speech doesn't mean you can break the law.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
15. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  -1, Ovenready
16. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but no. 99% of the country isn't like you, at the age of 45 and well into your exciting, rewarding career of 'sandwich artist'.
17. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Cederic · 2017-12-02 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  What are mud people? Are they the Louisiana alternative to a snowmen, because they're short on snow but have lots of mud?
  I agree, running over the figures created by children is cruel, but is it against the law? Maybe vandalism?
18. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  NO, because they wouldn't have noticed. Fucktard.
19. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Highdude702 · 2017-12-02 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's racist. The reason why is because you simply could have said "Think of it like this. You can hire a big truck with a sign on it that says, "Whites are Superior". That's legal. But if you run that truck over a bunch of people". Unfortunately you chose to let your true colors show. You've been doing that a lot lately, yet you're the same person that yells "racist" at anybody that disagrees with you. This is why you people keep losing traction.
20. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by squiggleslash · 2017-12-02 15:40 · Score: 2
  
  That's not the question. The question is would he have been arrested had he dropped blank leaflets, or leaflets expressing an opinion opposite to that expressed, or leaflets discussing the moderation system of Slashdot.
  My guess is yes. Dropping leaflets would appear to be problematic for all kinds of reasons, and I suspect many of those reasons overlap with overt prohibitions in codes the FAA enforces.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
21. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by rtb61 · 2017-12-02 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  Would you prefer mud monkey as in ie earth primate. From a galactic point of view you could be racist against all humans, let's not be bigoted, OK (not a white power sign on earth or any other planet in the galaxy).
  Typical examples of free speech that is most emphatically illegal, fraud and in the US where money is speech, trying to hire an assassin. Free speech is really the right to freely express your opinion and not an open right to make false claim of fact or to actively incite conflict or in a democracy deny the public the right to all facts that could affect their vote ie it is illegal for government to corruptly use tax payer money to keep secrets from that taxpayer that would affect their vote, that would be an electoral crime (censorship is speech, your speech silencing others, one must censor the censors in order to maintain the free opinions of others).
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
22. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 17:09 · Score: 0
  
  That phrase does not mean what you think it does.
  It means that you can't be arrested for talking trash about the government.
  I had to explain this to someone once regarding that jerk-bigot father from Duck Dynasty, nothing in the first amendment says that your employer (in this case the TV channel) has to let you have a soapbox to say whatever you want from.
23. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by PopeRatzo · 2017-12-02 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  The reason why is because you simply could have said "Think of it like this. You can hire a big truck with a sign on it that says, "Whites are Superior". That's legal. But if you run that truck over a bunch of people". Unfortunately you chose to let your true colors show.
  I wanted to put it in terms the average Slashdot AC could understand.
  I probably should have mentioned SJWs and virtue-signaling, too.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
24. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by tlhIngan · 2017-12-02 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  But would he have been arrested for flying the drone if he had not dropped leaflets? It is likely that hundreds of people fly drones within 5 miles of SFO or OAK everyday. How many of them are arrested? Selective enforcement of the law can be a form of oppression.
  No, he would be arrested because he flew into a no-fly zone. Stadiums are restricted airspace (from ground to 3000 feet above ground) - you are absolutely not allowed to fly in restricted airspace (except in emergencies). This applies whether we're talking drone, a Cessna 150, a 747, or military jet.
  Now, it's possible that many people are flying drones illegally. The reason it's hard is because most of these flights are transient in nature - if you have a drone on the ground, it's legal. While it's flying, it's not legal. But if the drone is back on the ground by the time the cops arrive, well, unless there's evidence it's your drone flying illegally, they really can't do anything.
  This guy was stupid, because he left behind evidence, so even if he was back on the ground, it's easy to tie him to the action and thus, the illegal flight. If all he did was fly a drone with a banner on it, it's a lot harder to tie him to the action especially if he got rid of the banner.
  Basically, stupid people get caught. And stupid includes making it plainly obvious you're doing something illegal.
25. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  You mean Ivanhoe?
  Or do you know, that the name Ivan comes really from finno-ugric name Ilkka? Not some slavic name.
  Most of the western and north-western slaves are really decendants of finno-ugric tribes who converted to russian orthodoxy. Like murom tribe and whatnot. Nothing to do with slavic people.
26. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-03 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Yes you can have free speech but you cannot break laws in expressing that. Are people really this stupid these days?
  If you have to ask, then you obviously don't understand the problem in the first place.
27. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-03 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  That is Only part of what âoefree speechâ means. You condened the pilot of misinterpreting free speech while you have done the same thing.
28. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by sabri · 2017-12-03 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Stadiums are restricted airspace (from ground to 3000 feet above ground)
  No they are not. Get your facts straight.
  
  At this time, there is not a single permanent restriction on flying over any stadium in the U.S.Only Disneyland and Disneyworld have permanent restrictions.
  
  Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) are enacted by the FAA during events only. And even then, the TFRs are in some cases very conditional. Levi's Stadium for example, was somehow approved directly under the flight path for KSJC. Depending on the wind, arriving or departing traffic will have to overfly the stadium during normal operations. Depending on the type of TFR, even regular traffic (your friendly Cessna pilot) may get permission from ATC to fly through the TFR. Levi's stadium is within SJC's class C so you'd be talking to ATC anyway.
  
  And here is a real world example: SJC itself would be within the TFR being within 3nm (2.1nm from the DME). I like to fly the Bay Tour every once in a while. Departing from Reid-Hillview (a small south San Jose airport), I have to fly directly over SJC airport. Typically, SJC ATC will instruct you to fly straight over the airport at 2500ft, so that would be within your beloved TFR. And guess what? That is no problem whatsoever.
  
  Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
  
  --
  I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
29. Re: Free speech does not exclude laws by dave420 · 2017-12-04 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should mention how mentioning virtue signalling or SJWs is virtue signalling...
30. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by misaltas · 2017-12-04 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  That phrase does not mean what you think it does.
  It means that you can't be arrested for talking trash about the government.
  If you're being sarcastic, then dilly dilly!
  Else, no, it doesn't mean what YOU think it does.
  The first amendment has nothing to do with "trash talking the government", egads, man...
31. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by artemis67 · 2017-12-04 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  > Are people really this stupid these days?
  Have you seen who was elected president?
32. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by CaptainDork · 2017-12-04 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, asshole. Read this. *emphasis mine)
  
  CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
33. Re:Free speech does not exclude laws by misaltas · 2017-12-08 07:58 · Score: 1
  Hey, asshole. Read this. *emphasis mine)
  
  CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  Wow... Hilarious that your rude response proves MY point and opposes your own.
  Let's see if you can follow this. I'll try one more time. More slowly this time... See if you can keep up.
  
  -- The First Amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from restricting your speech. About ANYTHING.
  -- (With some well-defined exceptions) it doesn't matter WHAT that speech is about.
  -- It has nothing to do with the government only restricting speech about or against the government.
  -- It has nothing to do about trash talking the government.
  -- It's about government not being able to restrict your speech in general.
  If you still can't grasp the important difference between your error and the truth, try XKCD's take on the subject. And then maybe go back to high school, cuz it's obvious you missed a few days.
  In other words, if you're going to be smug, first be correct.
What did the leaflets say? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 05:41 · Score: 1

What did the leaflets say?
1. Re:What did the leaflets say? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-12-02 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  The leaflets asked people to deposit them in a recycling bin.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:What did the leaflets say? by Known+Nutter · 2017-12-02 05:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Most media outlets aren't reporting the content of the leaflets, probably to avoid promoting this sort of thing, but the initial report I saw indicated something about corrupt media and assault on freedom.
  
  A rep for the Santa Clara Police Department (SCPD) told the San Francisco Chronicle the leaflets included, "something about free speech and his belief that television stations are corrupt."
  
  source
  
  --
  Beware of the Leopard.
3. Re:What did the leaflets say? by Hal_Porter · 2017-12-02 06:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  CBS have declined to explain but a bit of searching turns up this
  https://www.facebook.com/RedXS...
  https://archive.fo/eoZiN
  https://www.facebook.com/Tracy...
  https://archive.fo/IcXKV
  https://www.facebook.com/notes...
  https://archive.fo/ywhAk
  tl;dr - nothing particularly interesting. Archive links because FB will probably pull his account to protect us all from reading his rather empty, but basically harmless rants.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
4. Re:What did the leaflets say? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Most media outlets aren't reporting the content of the leaflets, probably to avoid promoting this sort of thing
  It might have something to do with the fact that the leaflets accused the media (the ones hiding this part of the story) of launching a coup d'etat against the United States, that the media are complicit in a fear-based propaganda war to enhance the power of the deep state and deprive citizens of their liberties.
5. Re:What did the leaflets say? by AmiMoJo · 2017-12-02 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Or it might be because they are the deranged rantings of POTUS.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:What did the leaflets say? by FatdogHaiku · 2017-12-02 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  On advice of counsel, the leaflets chose to remain silent, but not before they had invoked the 1st, 5th, and 9th amendments
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
7. Re: What did the leaflets say? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  You win a prize for mentioning the word of the year, complicit
8. Re:What did the leaflets say? by Known+Nutter · 2017-12-02 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  It might have something to do with the fact that the leaflets accused the media (the ones hiding this part of the story) of launching a coup d'etat against the United States, that the media are complicit in a fear-based propaganda war to enhance the power of the deep state and deprive citizens of their liberties.
  Could be. Nothing would surprise me anymore.
  
  --
  Beware of the Leopard.
9. Re:What did the leaflets say? by drew_kime · 2017-12-02 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Or it might be because they are the deranged rantings of POTUS.
  That's what he said.
  
  --
  Nope, no sig
10. Re:What did the leaflets say? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  https://archive.fo/ywhAk
  The Coup D’E tat of the United States Press
  Red 'X' SocietyThursday, 2 March 2017
  by Tracy Mapes
  SACRAMENTO,California--In America, it has long been held that there is a sacred bond between the United States Government, and the People of the United States.
  That bond is the unbendable document called the Constitution of the United States, and, as I am about to embark, this bond has been broken by the Corruption of Our Central Bodies of Government, Executive, Legislature, Judiciary, Agency, and the Press.
  This means that while Americans have been kept busy with the non-essential, info-tainment of the Press, both Print and Broadcast, these bodies along with all key positions in the Government of the United States, have been subverted and replaced with loyalist Felons and Street Prostitutes as legitimate Journalists, Political Appointees, Judges, and even Entertainment Personnel.
  This means that along with the Silent Subversion of the 1st Amendment of Our Constitution, a facade of disinformation has cloaked the atrocity with unfounded fears of the necessity to increase the National Security risks assessed to convince the Citizens of the United States that loss of their personal freedoms, restriction on travel, and the production of “Fake News” in warranted to maintain the Secrecy of the Criminal Enterprise Our Government has become.
  I became aware of this situation in quite an unconventional manner.
  As I have described over the past 8 years, to United States Government agencies including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Congress, the United States Senate, and News Media alike, without material response, I met over 150 Pimps, Prostitutes, and Individuals involved in criminal acts in the related to the before mentioned street crimes on the streets of Sacramento, California during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.
  Since my involvement with these persons over a 7 year period, 2 of the persons involved in narcotics use and prostitution have become Presidents of the United States of America.
  With the addition of a First Lady, a Supreme Court Justice, State Senator, City Mayor, and County District Attorney of Sacramento, there are nearly 150 persons that have been placed, appointed, hired, or infiltrated into the Newsrooms of America.
  One could look at this as a miracle of some great proportion, but in fact, the pattern sings of racketeering, espionage, and the criminal manipulation of All Avenues of Control and Command of the United States Government and the Media.
  And, after engaging in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America ...I find this UN-Acceptable!
  The Red ‘X’ Society was formed as an Idea, to redress this wrong, and hold those accountable for this Horrific Tragedy of United States Government Miss-Management, and urge All Americans to display the Red ‘X’ until this matter is resolved in accordance with the written word of the U.S. Constitution.
11. Re:What did the leaflets say? by artemis67 · 2017-12-04 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  How dare they slander the POTUS by quoting him verbatim and providing the actual context!
Never mind the illegal flying by DontBeAMoran · 2017-12-02 05:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Charge him with littering.

--
#DeleteFacebook
1. Re:Never mind the illegal flying by MrL0G1C · 2017-12-02 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  I came here to say this, it's pretty obvious really.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
2. Re:Never mind the illegal flying by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-12-02 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Actually littering might get thrown out as speech, in this case the handing out of pamplets overrides this. This is why people who throw newspapers on your lawn can't be charged with littering, and that's your house.
  There could be a danger violation here, but not a mundane littering charge.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
3. Re:Never mind the illegal flying by MrL0G1C · 2017-12-02 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'd argue that if you're not giving the leaflet to someone directly then it is littering. Also if it's not being dropped within the vicinity of a persons door / mailbox / front lawn. And 1 leaflet might be ok but not 100.
  In the UK we don't have free speech laws AFAIK and you'd get slapped with a fine for littering pretty fast I expect (I'm not a lawyer). The newspaper on a lawn thing doesn't happen here, it rains too much and you'd risk having someone throwing it straight back at you!
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
4. Re:Never mind the illegal flying by Aighearach · 2017-12-02 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  It is the same here in the US, the dropping of it on the ground isn't speech, so it doesn't matter what the content of the pamphlet is.
  Freedom of the Press, which is how our free speech is actually worded, prevents the government from measuring the content of the speech of the item dropped on the ground; they're required to solely assess if you abandoned it in public in violation of the littering law. They can't look at it and respond differently based on what it says unless it contains threats, evidence of a crime, or something similar.
  If they were dropping them on the ground and then picking them back up, that would be protected, and would probably be considered speech. But actions are only considered speech to the extent that they are communicative; the non-communicative portion involved in the abandonment of said items gets left out of the speech analysis. So dropping it on the ground might be speech, but leaving it there is certainly not.
  I am not a lawyer, but I do read SCOTUSblog.
5. Re:Never mind the illegal flying by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-12-02 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom of the Press, which is how our free speech is actually worded
  Oh??
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
6. Re:Never mind the illegal flying by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  In the UK we don't have free speech laws AFAIK
  We do. You're an idiot.
FAA still to speak by HornWumpus · 2017-12-02 06:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

You're not supposed to fly directly over crowds.
I always maintain a horizontal offset while trolling crowds of paranoids with my model predator drone. Protip: Put a plant into the crowd to 'spot the drone' or 90% of flights are wasted.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
1. Re:FAA still to speak by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  Hey moron, they aren't being paranoid if you are recording them. You are just an asshole voyeur.
2. Re:FAA still to speak by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  Ha. Ha. Ha. - someone doesn't get it.
TFR by mattwarden · 2017-12-02 06:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Regardless of the proximity to the airport, all stadiums are under a TFR up to 3000 AGL above and around a stadium during NFL games. See https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_...
1. Re:TFR by drinkypoo · 2017-12-02 06:32 · Score: 2
  
  Regardless of the proximity to the airport, all stadiums are under a TFR up to 3000 AGL above and around a stadium during NFL games.
  
  And that's what's actually relevant here, since you only have an obligation to notify an airport if you're going to fly within five miles. You're still not allowed to ever fly your drone actually over the airport, or usually a small border around it, but it's not five miles. Some airports have a web form you can fill out to provide notification, others expect it in writing, some will take a phone call. This notion that you are prohibited from flying a drone within five miles of an airport is bollocks.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:TFR by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  This is a DJI firmware feature that graduates height to distance from airport in the US, using a 5 mile radius as outer edge of threshold.
Another spoiled citizen. by Gravis+Zero · 2017-12-02 06:19 · Score: 1

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the first amendment because it exists to ensure that political dissent cannot be silenced. However, this is a good example of another citizen who has been spoiled by the first amendment. While some may call his views as "opinions" the reality is that some people subscribe to factually incorrect narratives. Sadly our own president has been pushing these false narratives which only encourages more extreme behavior. The freedom of speech is not unlimited like some people (e.g. this guy) seem to think.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:Another spoiled citizen. by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-12-02 06:54 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Factually incorrect narratives? You mean like ABC News did just today? The Dow plunged 350 points after the false report.
  It's pretty hard to defend anyone for attacking the media when they do such a good job at either lying or being totally incompetent at their job. Remember how they showed why they're so mistrusted when they lied about Trump and the koi pond?
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
2. Re:Another spoiled citizen. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  You still being told to bitch about the Koi Pond? Call the Kremlin, and get some new marching orders, it has ZERO traction.
3. Re:Another spoiled citizen. by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-12-02 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  The media IS lying. They just lie about the important things, the mundane things like the weather they don't lie about. Why are you defending them? #1 they don't need your help, they're the freaking media, #2 they lie. It's been proven so many damn times it's not even funny, and if your news sources don't point this out every time it happens, you're watching untrustworthy news sources. I mean, WTF the media heads openly use threats and intimidation now. Doesn't that just scream "EVIL"?
  
  "One of the things I think this administration hasn't figured out yet is that thereâ(TM)s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus â" and that's CNN," Zucker said. "The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN.
  Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with that network is a mistake."
  -- Jeff Zucker, CNN Ceo.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
4. Re:Another spoiled citizen. by DogDude · 2017-12-03 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  You're a nutter. Saying "an industry made up of millions of people lie 100% of the time about important stuff" because occasionally one or two people does something wrong is absurd. That's the same argument that racists, sexists, and every other kind of piece of shit human being uses.
  
  You're either deliberately being malicious, or you have a screw loose. I don't know which it is, but again, if ytou're being deliberately malicious, again, go fuck yourself. If you're nuts, then I hope you get help.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
5. Re:Another spoiled citizen. by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-12-05 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's how you know a fanatic: someone who is unconvinced by evidence. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend the media doesn't lie to you, all the evidence in the world will never convince you. Did the press lie about the koi pond? Yes. Did they lie about Flynn? Yes. They are not neutral observers, they are a partisan force, on the side of the Left. This is not in doubt.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
6. Re:Another spoiled citizen. by DogDude · 2017-12-06 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Evidence. You pluck out two points out of millions and call that "evidence". You are clearly not a scientist. You are not even a particularly strong thinker. I don't think that you're a troll... just a lazy thinker.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
7. Re:Another spoiled citizen. by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-12-06 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  The media is lying to you. Are you seriously saying we should trust them? WTF? It's like the character in the first five minutes of a dystopia film. The one who shortly gets disappeared.
  CNN on family leave before and after Trump backed it
  Julie Pace of the AP calls Trump a liar about media conspiracy while she was actively conspiring to promote Clinton.
  https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/trump-keeps-claiming-fake-news-and-these-media-mistakes-make-his-case.html/6/
  Paul Krugman Lies. Gets 8k+ retweets. . . "Ok, It's not true". 160 retweets.
  NPR chief lives among the savages for a year and it changes his view.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I am shocked by this by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 06:24 · Score: 0

I am shocked by this news.
I demand the man is forced to drop money next time.
Ideally the first UBI money dropped from a drone ever.
Article doesn't state what the leaflets said... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 06:28 · Score: 0

...because he probably had a libertarian or conservative point of view.
If it had been a liberal cause, you can be darn sure it would have been the highlight of the news piece.
1. Re:Article doesn't state what the leaflets said... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly.
  Everyone reads this article and talks about what a kook this guy is. Or they see that he has put people and aircraft in danger by flying close to an airport. So of course they would want to downplay the content of the leaflets if they are conservative.
  If the leaflets had a liberal point of view, you can bet they would have been published in full all over. So people could say, "What a liberal kook! What a liberal criminal!
2. Re:Article doesn't state what the leaflets said... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  Reading his rantings is quite entertaining in a way. He claims that Sacramento Street Pimps and Prostitutes are involved in a grand Conspiracy to initiate a "Coup D'E tats", (His words), against the Constitution. Or Something.
  My guess is that he's a Drunk that got rolled, and is now at war against the Sacramento Juicy Whoriers. Or Something.
  So yeah, a Libertarian. Or Something.
  In other words, a Nothing. Like you.
Good for him by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-02 06:31 · Score: 3

Fighting the good fight, out in the real world, instead of hiding behind a monitor. Sure, he broke the law, but that comes with the territory. Even in a peaceful revolution.
so anachronistic! by Gravis+Zero · 2017-12-02 06:32 · Score: 3, Funny

all stadiums are under a TFR up to 3000 AGL above and around a stadium during NFL games.
It's been my experience that transferors usually have less than 3000 agility points but I don't see what this has to do with Newfoundland's games. ;)

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
At least they caught the guy... by Hrrrg · 2017-12-02 06:33 · Score: 1

My biggest concern with drone is that they will be used for anonymous crimes. Hopefully this story is an indication that we will be able to track down the owners.
1. Re:At least they caught the guy... by NewtonsLaw · 2017-12-02 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  Check out DJI's Aeroscope. It's now almost trivial to track errant drones and their owners.
Welcome.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 06:38 · Score: 0

... to the post-net-neutrality version of social media.
Carefully ignoring what he said by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-12-02 06:50 · Score: 3

I can't help but notice that the content of the leaflets is not spoken of. Only "anti-media", which we all know is Wrongthink[tm]. We all should believe the media, they wouldn't lie or shelter sex offenders. Or have dead people show up in their offices like MSNBC's Joe Scarborough. A fucking female intern died in his office and he got off scot-free.
No, the story is about how he did wrong. This kind of crap is why nobody trusts the mainstream media any more. If they say the sky is blue you go outside and check.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
1. Re:Carefully ignoring what he said by Aighearach · 2017-12-02 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  OK, defender of truth and fighter of Wrongthing(TM):
  http://www.politifact.com/trut...
  My goodness, with a neckbeard that thick I'm surprised you haven't been kidnapped and sold to Bukharan markhor smugglers.
2. Re:Carefully ignoring what he said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  Looks like we found the drone pilot. He must have posted bail.
3. Re:Carefully ignoring what he said by Tablizer · 2017-12-02 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  A fucking female intern died in his office and he got off scot-free.
  
  Your Conspiracy Switch is on. She died of a bad heart. No evidence of foul play.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
4. Re:Carefully ignoring what he said by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-12-02 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yaknow, a year ago I would have said you were crazy if you had told me that George Takei and Kevin Spacey were sex offenders. But we today know that's true. It's not beyond doubt that Scarborogh engaged in foul play and a woman died. We KNOW these people abuse the shit out of women. This is a fact.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
5. Re:Carefully ignoring what he said by SlashDread · 2017-12-03 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Alledgedy, the leaflet reads "Don't believe everything you read."
  Allegedly.
6. Re:Carefully ignoring what he said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-03 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Well, let's be fair, it's not that straightforward. It is claimed that she fainted due to a bad heart, and died from hitting her head on the desk.
  What we know for sure is that she died from hitting her head on a desk. The medical examiner said it was because she had fainted, but he could be on the take presumably. So you have someone with extreme government power, and someone died from blunt force trauma on that persons desk, and the government cleared them. It is difficult to falsify the theory that it was a whitewash, as most people that die from heads hitting desks were man-slaughtered at the very least.
  On the other hand, we are supposed to give a presumption of innocence in such cases, and just move on.
7. Re:Carefully ignoring what he said by Aighearach · 2017-12-03 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  George Takei is accused of: Being friends with people at bars ; taking one of those friends home intending sex after that person had a breakup. The only problem is that the other person says he was removing that person's pants when that person awoke from having briefly passed out.
  That is not a serious accusation of misconduct. They were both drunk, and it is pretty normal in that situation for both people to want sex. People do not perceive the passage of time when they're passed out; there is no way to know if he merely nodded off for a second at the same time that George was making his move, or if he was actually knew the person was sleeping. He was "go" until "no," and that is exactly what the moral and ethical standards of the time expected.
  Kevin Spacey OTOH is accused of child rape.
8. Re:Carefully ignoring what he said by Tablizer · 2017-12-03 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  ANY accident in an "important" place deserves more scrutiny, but the original poster wrote it as if it's a sure conspiracy or proven coverup. If you have more evidence, bring it forth. Otherwise, STFU.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
9. Re:Carefully ignoring what he said by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-12-05 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  We don't judge people by the standards that existed at the time, we judge people by today's standards. Otherwise rapists like Roman Polanski and Bill Clinton would get off scot free today. Takei is a rapist, end of story. I'm shocked to see people defending a rapist, maybe there's something in your past we don't know about?
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
10. Re:Carefully ignoring what he said by Aighearach · 2017-12-05 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  We
  OK, I looked it up and you're still not the Queen. So therefore, no we don't.
Concrete Security Dome to Thwart Drone Attacks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 06:51 · Score: 0

Seems only a matter of time before some famous people are killed in drone strikes. Most physical security involves fences, walls, gates, guards, etc, which is fine for land-based threats. While various commercial counter-measures (ie. jamming, nets, etc) exist to detect and disable drones, they're likely not sufficient for swarms of them.
I'm surprised the rich and powerful aren't building concrete domes, similar to those use for nuclear reactors, over their estates and other important holdings. Such domes wouldn't necessarily need to be fully covered; having a retractable portion that could close very quickly in event of a detected drone activity.
As for the White House and U.S. Capital, it's likely at some point, such structures will be mostly ceremonial in nature with actual living quarters and meetings underground. Alternatively, closing off even more streets and limiting use of many structures nearby to create a larger security zone.
1. Re:Concrete Security Dome to Thwart Drone Attacks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  The only drones actually worthwhile to launch against the swamp-dwellers in D.C. are ones with nuclear or thermonuclear WMDs.
  Pretty-please?
2. Re:Concrete Security Dome to Thwart Drone Attacks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  You might not be aware of this, but anti-drone technology already exists in the form of microwave jammers that will deactivate your drones, whole swarms of them, and/or burn them. Just check it out. You might be amazed at how the rich and powerful have won the war already.
3. Re:Concrete Security Dome to Thwart Drone Attacks by IonOtter · 2017-12-02 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sooner than you think...
  
  --
  [End Of Line]
Ironic. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 07:57 · Score: 0

Protesting media with media.
And this, laydies and gentlemen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 08:46 · Score: 0

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a typical example of the level of intelligence of the average Trump supporter.
And before you mod this post troll or flaimbait, what are you willing to bet against me that this was NOT a Trump supporter ?
I thought so.
1. Re: And this, laydies and gentlemen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that he can fly a drone over a stadium twice before getting apprehended and without crashing the drone puts him way ahead of you in intelligence, at least the cunning kind...
  Meanwhile you can't even figure out how to log in to a website and probably rely on your mom for internet. I'll bet this guy was able to pay for his own internet also.
2. Re: And this, laydies and gentlemen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  LOL ! And here we have one little butthurt Trumpist snowflake !
YES BUT WHAT DID THEY SAY? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 09:00 · Score: 0

ffs how can you NOT be pissed off with the media when they do such a piss poor job of reporting even the most BASIC facts?
Re: Article doesn't state what the leaflets said.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 09:38 · Score: 0

Wow, OP really ruffled your feathers, huh?
(S)he has a point though: why hide the rant?
I Suppose We Should Be Grateful? by IonOtter · 2017-12-02 09:39 · Score: 1

He could have used artillery...

--
[End Of Line]
Fined for litering by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 13:19 · Score: 0

So is he going to clean up all his dropped pamphlets?
I don't really care about drone laws but he should be made to pay for dirtying up the place.
Drones are okay! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 13:29 · Score: 0

It's
Okay
To Be
Flight
Bad reporting by linuxwrangler · 2017-12-02 13:57 · Score: 2

Almost every report I've read about this has a comment that it is illegal to fly within 5 miles of an airport which is simply untrue. You can fly within 5 miles of any airport. If the airport is not in Class B airspace then you are required to *notify* the operator and, if there is a control tower, the tower of your operational plans. Within Class B airspace, which does not cover either stadium as they are not within 5 miles of San Francisco International, you need permission and must coordinate with the controllers.
But it *is* illegal to fly within 3 miles of a NFL stadium from one hour before to one hour after a scheduled game. Similar restrictions apply to certain other sporting events like NASCAR and NCAA division one football.
And the miles are *nautical* miles which are roughly 15% greater than statute miles. The reporters never make that distinction, either.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_...

--

~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
1. Re:Bad reporting by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-03 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  The rules say you need to request permission from the tower and give them your flight plan. There is debate about whether you need to respect what the tower tells you in response. Either way you can't just fly within that 5 miles of the airport without doing something special.
Re: Article doesn't state what the leaflets said.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 18:55 · Score: 0

"(S)he has a point though: why hide the rant?"
For those with 15 seconds to spare online, this rant is not hidden. It is gleefully easy to search for.
Publishing it for convenient public perusal is however another matter. It would add some kind of legitimacy to his behavior, an acknowledgment that he is worth hearing out, complete, and unedited. He isn't. (Somebody else has added his rant after my first post here. See Comments for yourself.) If he wants an airing about his grievances against Sacramento Pimps and Prostitutes, let him buy an Advertisement in the Sacramento Bee. Or go on one of the far too many Right-Wing Programs that pander to this idiocy.
Flagrantly Spamming over that American Institution, the Football Game, is... is... Unamerican! Do you support these kinds of Freedoms of Speech? Do you really want to be swamped under piles of leaflets, while the inevitable Coke vs. Pepsi Moral Wars are fought by Drones overhead?
Is nothing Sacred to you?
Are you perhaps... Unamerican? Are you perhaps... a Rooskie? Paid by the by the Foes of the Pimps and Prostitutes of Sacramento to cast doubt on the very fine American Tradition of casting your Eyes Heavenward, and crying out in Unity at a Drone: "FUCK YOU!!!"
Piss off, Commie.
"Wow, OP really ruffled your feathers, huh?"
At least I don't have Chickenhawk Feathers, like your Faux-Libertarian Bone-Spur President. WashPost has just released a couple of dozen Court Proceedings, filed by certain Females, on hold until Trump is out of Office. Family Values my ass.
Trump is even more delusional than Drone Spammer, and the American Libertarian/Conservatives just adore him for this.
Captcha: harbors
Classic by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-03 00:16 · Score: 0

Dissenting voice?
1. make it stop (permanently if possible)
2. make an example of
3. pretend it didn't matter anyway
Why do they keep lying about this? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-04 04:36 · Score: 0

There is no law that it is illegal to fly within 5 miles of an airport. With your Part 107 certification there is no distance limit, and instead you fly based on airspace classes. Even without this, if you are not flying for commercial purposes there is no limitation because the FAA themselves have stated they are not allowed to regulate model aircraft.
Until the FAA comes up with a proper model-level regulation that doesn't defy its earlier legislation prohibiting it, the only law that applies is Part 107 and only to commercial flying.