Why? According to TFA, over 500,000 hobbyist drones have been sold in the past few years. 27 actually incidents (and not all of them were caused by hobbyists) is a very low number. Why should the 99.999% of drone owners who are responsible be punished? There are already laws to punish the irresponsible, and as TFA points out, some have been. Also, why should corporations, government agencies, and military by allowed to fly them (they caused some of the incidents too), but not civilians?
Did you read TFA? The point is many of the reports of drone "close calls" were either cases where the drone operator *was* flying within the rules, or the drone was government or commercial or military, not a hobbyist, or it wasn't even a drone to begin with. The FAA is lumping all these reports together, added fuel to the panic.
You obviously didn't read TFA... the pilots reporting the incidents are making the distinction between "close call" and "near miss", not the hobbyists behind the report.
That doesn't really apply here. Merrill runs an ISP and the NSL was (presumably) for information on one or more of his customers. Disclosing what types of information the FBI wanted still wouldn't tell you which customer(s) they were investigating. And its a moot point anyways, as the FBI admits the case(s) was/were closed years ago. There's no possible justification left here for a gag order.
NSLs were intended for time-sensitive extreme cases where the suspect(s) can't be tipped off, but the FBI issues thousands per year, so clearly they're not just using them for the extreme cases. And trying to keep a gag order in place 11 years after it was issued (and supposedly time-sensitive) goes far beyond "stretching the law".
As I read it, the shooter can see right into the operator's backyard from his deck. If he had looked around for 2 seconds he would have seen the operator. But no, his first thought was to get the shotgun and start shooting.
you are just trying to justify that the drone operator was correct on assumptions when this happened, you know now by the video of what the drone saw, but the thing is that you need to know this things when this was happening, not after
Are you saying shoot first, ask questions later?
If the guy didn't like the drone flying over his property he could have just talked to the operator. If he had real reason to think it was filming his daughters (presuming they are underaged), he should have contacted the police. Getting out your gun at the first sign something might be amiss isn't the way to handle things in a society of justice and laws.
I totally agree, there ought to be laws regarding this. But the fact there aren't yet such laws doesn't give every yokel with a shotgun the right to take the law into their own hands.
The problem is to get line to your property, they must run wires through property you don't own and likely will have to dig up city streets. I agree it should be much easier for companies to get approval to do this, but you're making it sound like it's only your property that comes into play.
It common sense to think that a flying something over someones property too high and too briefly to be taking pictures would be ignored by any rational human being.
You surmised my political beliefs based on that one short sentence?
So you'd destroy someone's property on the chance that they might be recording you? Do you ask everyone who approaches you to put away their cellphones? Sheesh.
The drone operator in this case did nothing wrong. The drone was way too high to be filming the shooter and his family. It's pretty clear it stopped over the guy's property to re-orient, and the video didn't show any humans at all as the camera wasn't facing down. I could understand the guy shooting it down if it stayed there for a long period of time and/or was flying at a much lower height where it was obvious it was trying to film the family, but that wasn't the case here.
Shot at, no, but certainly many Glass owners were harassed, and a few attacked, despite the fact that it had a big red light that comes on when recording (unlike smartphones).
The option to disable the hotspot was there before the lawsuit... the article you linked even says so. I think it was harder to find back then though. Still doesn't change the fact that nobody is "forced" to act as a hotspot.
Netflix recently started showing ads (just ads for their own original shows, they aren't selling ad space) at the start or end of videos, but they are rare, rare enough I've yet to see one myself.
Slashdot Mirror
What part of "most of the reports didn't involve hobbyists flying near airports" did you not understand?
Why? According to TFA, over 500,000 hobbyist drones have been sold in the past few years. 27 actually incidents (and not all of them were caused by hobbyists) is a very low number. Why should the 99.999% of drone owners who are responsible be punished? There are already laws to punish the irresponsible, and as TFA points out, some have been. Also, why should corporations, government agencies, and military by allowed to fly them (they caused some of the incidents too), but not civilians?
Did you read TFA? The point is many of the reports of drone "close calls" were either cases where the drone operator *was* flying within the rules, or the drone was government or commercial or military, not a hobbyist, or it wasn't even a drone to begin with. The FAA is lumping all these reports together, added fuel to the panic.
You obviously didn't read TFA... the pilots reporting the incidents are making the distinction between "close call" and "near miss", not the hobbyists behind the report.
That falsely assumes that the FBI always collects XXX and only XXX and hasn't and will never collect YYY or ZZZ.
That doesn't really apply here. Merrill runs an ISP and the NSL was (presumably) for information on one or more of his customers. Disclosing what types of information the FBI wanted still wouldn't tell you which customer(s) they were investigating. And its a moot point anyways, as the FBI admits the case(s) was/were closed years ago. There's no possible justification left here for a gag order.
NSLs were intended for time-sensitive extreme cases where the suspect(s) can't be tipped off, but the FBI issues thousands per year, so clearly they're not just using them for the extreme cases. And trying to keep a gag order in place 11 years after it was issued (and supposedly time-sensitive) goes far beyond "stretching the law".
The electrons go backwards in time. ;)
As I read it, the shooter can see right into the operator's backyard from his deck. If he had looked around for 2 seconds he would have seen the operator. But no, his first thought was to get the shotgun and start shooting.
you are just trying to justify that the drone operator was correct on assumptions when this happened, you know now by the video of what the drone saw, but the thing is that you need to know this things when this was happening, not after
Are you saying shoot first, ask questions later?
If the guy didn't like the drone flying over his property he could have just talked to the operator. If he had real reason to think it was filming his daughters (presuming they are underaged), he should have contacted the police. Getting out your gun at the first sign something might be amiss isn't the way to handle things in a society of justice and laws.
Physical objects can't trespass and you don't own the airspace above your property.
I totally agree, there ought to be laws regarding this. But the fact there aren't yet such laws doesn't give every yokel with a shotgun the right to take the law into their own hands.
The problem is to get line to your property, they must run wires through property you don't own and likely will have to dig up city streets. I agree it should be much easier for companies to get approval to do this, but you're making it sound like it's only your property that comes into play.
It common sense to think that a flying something over someones property too high and too briefly to be taking pictures would be ignored by any rational human being.
You surmised my political beliefs based on that one short sentence?
A drone can't trespass, it didn't repeatedly come over the guy's property, and it was too high to being taking pictures of the sunbathers.
So you'd destroy someone's property on the chance that they might be recording you? Do you ask everyone who approaches you to put away their cellphones? Sheesh.
The drone operator in this case did nothing wrong. The drone was way too high to be filming the shooter and his family. It's pretty clear it stopped over the guy's property to re-orient, and the video didn't show any humans at all as the camera wasn't facing down. I could understand the guy shooting it down if it stayed there for a long period of time and/or was flying at a much lower height where it was obvious it was trying to film the family, but that wasn't the case here.
Shot at, no, but certainly many Glass owners were harassed, and a few attacked, despite the fact that it had a big red light that comes on when recording (unlike smartphones).
Wish I had mod points.
200 feet above ground is low altitude???
Except this drone was neither violating the law nor common sense.
So if someone is fiddling with their smartphone for more than 20 seconds, do you shoot them? They could be filming you after all.
Agreed. Once you understand how to use async/await, you realize how much easier it is than the old ways.
That's baloney... you CAN run their modems in bridge mode. Check their forums, people do it all the time.
The option to disable the hotspot was there before the lawsuit... the article you linked even says so. I think it was harder to find back then though. Still doesn't change the fact that nobody is "forced" to act as a hotspot.
Netflix recently started showing ads (just ads for their own original shows, they aren't selling ad space) at the start or end of videos, but they are rare, rare enough I've yet to see one myself.
"What would happen if Microsoft patched the OS so that you saw a streamed advertisement at the beginning of each game you played?"
Microsoft would lose a ton of customers to Sony and have to stop doing it. It would be a different story if Microsoft was the only console maker.