If someone emails me, there's no way they can delete that mail.
I guess this only works with mail sent to Gmail accounts? So using a gmail address now has the disadvantage that senders can delete mails you've got in your inbox?
One reason is that they need to listen to a broad range of people. How does changing patent policy affect small businesses? The national economy? Research? Venture capitalists?
It's not practical to hire experts on all aspects of every policy are which might come up for discussion during their term. Or if they hire them just when necessary, what do these experts do the rest of the time? Well, they need a job that pays them for the 95% of the time when the politician doesn't need them, and then they're not unbiased.
And, when politicians want to know what small businesses think of a proposal, why not talk to someone who small businesses have chosen to work for them as a representative? That's a lobbyist, and it's the exact person they should talk to.
The problem is that certain lobbyists are getting listened to too much (big businesses), and others not at all (consumers, SMEs, citizens).
Independent parties who don't try to sway the opinion of the person they are talking to in the process?
They can't have an advisor for every single issue. Take the topic of software patents for example. Even if they had an army of advisors, enough to include a software advisor and a patents advisor, the chances are small that either of these is going to have the in depth knowledge of software patents that an expert in software patents has. And they shouldn't just listen to one person, so now they need multiple advisors on the very specific topic of software patents - a topic which may or may not come up during their term.
And should they really make laws affecting software developers, patent owners, and software users without talking to some people from these three groups? Or do you expect them to also have some software developers on staff (who happen to understand the patent aspects) just in case this topic comes up in their term?
I think it's right that politicians talk to groups that represent the stakeholders. (But where it goes wrong is that some stakeholders get too much time, and others get none. In my example, the former would be big patent owners, and the latter would be users of software.)
The assassin analogy is a good one. But if you accept that some honest lobbyists are necessary (which I argued in my 2nd post just above) then it gets complicated when you try to prove which lobbyists are dishonest. Microsoft produces public documents saying software patents are great, and I think those documents are misleading and inaccurate, but how do make a law saying Microsoft isn't allowed say what they say?
First off, to enforce such a law, you'd have to be able to know what Microsoft is saying. Can you make a law saying that all meetings have to be recorded? What about meetings outside of office hours?
I wouldn't necessarily be against such laws, but it's going to be difficult to find a formula that's practical.
Oh this case is rotten to the core, but I'm talking about lobbyists in general. There are good ones and they can have a role that's great for democracy.
One case I worked on involved software patents, which combines two things that most politicians know very little about. I can only imagine what the Microsofts and IBMs told them, but for my part I've a clean conscience.
The politicians really had no clue how patents work or how software development works or how the two interact or even the current situation of how the patent holders and the software developers were interacting. And it's not like there's a book they could each read and be experts in a week or two, and they can't have experts an every topic in the staff. That's why there's a role for lobbyists, but of course there's tonnes of room to improve how the system works (who gets access, etc.).
Lobbying isn't evil in itself. I've worked as a lobbyist. Politicians aren't experts in every domain, so a domain expert explaining the issue can be very useful.
George Lakoff explained it very well in a video that I can't find now. He said "lobby reform" is wrongly framing the debate. Groups should be allowed to say what they want politicians to do, but it's the politicians who must take this info and then do what the public wants. "Congressional integrity" is the term I think he said we should use for this debate. If our political representatives had more integrity, then lobbyists wouldn't be such a problem.
If there's a problem that politicians are taking bribes (be it campaign contributions or the promise of a well-paid job later), the party with the most guilt is the politician. We shouldn't let them off the hook by saying "It's the lobbyist's fault for offering the bribe!"
In the video I saw, he didn't go into how to reform "congressional integrity" but off the top of my head maybe he'd suggest politicians be subject to greater financial transparency, and maybe be banned for a certain time from taking jobs in certain industries whose legislation they worked on as a politician.
There are already designated places to fly: Public spaces and private areas that operators own or have permission.
Great. So people who enjoy flying drones can go there. There's no need to declare the whole city a designated fly zone.
"Don't be a dick" rule of life. Sure, there are people who violate that
And what happens? Nothing. You like asking for examples: have you an example of anti-harassement or peeping tom laws being succesfully used against people who are just being a dick with a drone? I'm guessing the case would have to be either extreme or very very clear and the annoyed person would have to have gotten lucky in finding the operator, and the person would have to have enough spare time and energy to want to go through a court case. That's not reliable.
there is nothing novel about a quadcopter over any other piece of technology
Of course there is. The combination is new and greatly changes the risk level and how effective the old laws are.
That's like saying we should have no laws about computer networks because networks are just pieces of plastic and metal. "Stop blocking my freedom to use plastics!"
If you don't want to fly a drone over a busy street between two apartment blocks, how is my proposal a restriction?
> Do you not have hobbies? How would you feel if someone wanted to arbitrarily restrict them?
One of my hobbies is sitting at my open window getting some sun. Yes, I would be annoyed if I couldn't do this in peace because people were allowed fly camera drones in front of my window. And I bet women would be much more annoyed than I would be.
The vast majority of the debate on quadcopters is the camera, so it's really not that different from a DSLR or smartphone camera.
They're completely different, as I explained, they go in different places, one can have no visible link to its controller.
> People don't stand in front of houses filming through the window.
Do you not know about 'Peeping Tom' laws?
They're good laws, and they're one deterrent. Another deterrent is that standing in front of someone's house filming through the window is socially frowned on. With drones, it can be hard to find the operator, so the peeping tom laws might prove unenforceable in a given case, and the operator doesn't have to stand where the camera is, so the social aspects are no deterrent.
If people enjoy flying, then let's make designated places where they can do that. Not over footpaths, roads, people's gardens or near to apartments and houses.
> Don't most places already have laws against those things?
I live in an apartment block. Facing me is another apartment block and between the two buildings there's a busy footpath, then a busy road, and another busy footpath. Nothing else. If someone loses control of an RC, there's an unacceptable chance of injury and could include causing a car crash.
Anyone who flys a drone over so many people is either an idiot who doesn't understand safety, or they know it's unsafe but they specifically want to be near people.
In terms of convicting someone of illegal drone use, you're right that anti-harassment could be tried. Problem is that they might or mightn't work, you might have a hard time proving it, and the case could take years. If you want to prevent the incident, it's better to have a clear law "No drones here".
> Because the abuses of the few shouldn't cause a restriction on the > freedoms of the many.
Drone are used by only a small group, so we're talking about restricting a small group to safeguard the safety and privacy of the many.
Further, drones as a good clean fun hobby can be played with in designated areas (not over the busy road in front of my apartment window).
(Unrelated note: I see we have a "-1 Disagree but can't say why" mod in the room. My comments, including ones that never got up-modded, are getting "-1 Overrated".)
No. Peeping etc. are just examples of what I'd be aiming to prevent with such rules.
> "because drone" legislation overkill
I live in an apartment block. Directly in front of me is a busy road and on the other side is another apartment block. This is the wrong place for someone to have fun with a drone. It's all cars, pedestrians, and apartments. Anyone flying a drone over the road in front of my apartment is either unsafe and/or is targeting people in some way.
Laws against peeping etc. are hard to enforce. Proof is a nightmare. But a blanket ban of flying drones on or above the busy street in front of my apartment is much easier to enforce.
Making a specific law is also sometimes beneficial because by being clear about what's not allowed, you can avoid people doing illegal stuff either because they didn't understand or because they thought no one could prove they were peeping/harassing/etc. If you say "No drones", then it's clear. Better to prevent the crime than to (try to) solve it.
> handheld camera
The two technologies are abviously different. Handheld cameras don't fly in front of people's apartment windows (privacy) and don't fly over people's heads or over roads where they can cause an accident (safety). Handheld cameras are also easily traceable to their operator. This makes enforcing peeping laws etc. more practical, and it means social norms regulate much bad usage (people don't stand in front of houses filming through the window).
Where have you personally observed them 'being a pest'?
I've never been attacked by a lion. May I have an opinion on whether people in my city should be allowed keep lions as pets?
Also, putting regulations in place is easier before a practice becomes commonplace. There are no nuclear power plants in Ireland. Is banning them when they don't exist ok? Or should the government let companies build a load of nuclear plants before thinking of whether they're a good idea?
Keep in mind that I'm for a blanket ban *with exceptions*. I.e. putting limits on what drone owners can do. If the things I propose banning (such as peeping, tracking, stalking, harassing) aren't happening, then why do you oppose the banning those things?
First, that's because historically the number of RCs was microscopic.
Even recently, far more people are injured by balls than models.
But ball ownership is not going to explode in the coming years.
So we ban things that aren't exercise?
Nonsense. I never said that.
Voyeurism and general being-a-jerk needs less help.
Ahh yes, the "every quadcopter is spying on me" fiction.
And I never said that. I doubt anyone has ever said that.
The reality is... not all models have cameras
Ones with cameras should be subject to rules that protect privacy and safety. Ones without cameras should just be subject to the rules about safety. That wasn't difficult.
Things that are different should be considered separately.
It's true that there are plenty of hobbyists who like good clean fun, but that doesn't mean every new drone owner can do whatever they like. Drones are becoming a pest, so we should think of how to limit them so they're not a pest (a broad ban) and then we should think of how to allow the good clean fun hobbyists (exceptions such as designated fly areas, drone clubs, certification which involves training and can be revoked for breaches of safety and ethics rules).
And when a drone is buzzing around the window of my apartment, who do I complain to? Do I phone a national hotline where a call centre agent will ask me "And what does the drone look like, sir?" How would that work?
And does how does this help me delete the pictures the drone's been taking?
And what if the drone was taking pictures and I didn't spot it?
You might have good intentions, but that law is worthless. Start with a blanket ban, and then think of exceptions.
> Why should I have to act illegally to retain all the freedoms I grew up with?
What we grew up with (i.e. how the world was until a few years ago) was that a very small number of hobbyists would buy these expensive things. They'd practise, they'd be very careful with their expensive toys, and they flew for the fun of flying rather than peeping (their RCs had no camera). The only ones I saw were in a certain part of the same park every Sunday.
That's what existed when we were growing up, and to preserve that we just have to create a few designated fly places.
A female friend doesn't want to take a certain bus any more because it goes through some rough areas and last year all the way home three guys were putting their hands in front of her face saying "I'm not touching you". She was pretty scared.
The drone users claiming they have a right to fly (and more importantly that this right shouldn't be limited) remind me of those guys.
That sounds good. I'm for first making a blanket ban, then thinking of exceptions. That's two worthwhile exceptions so far: (1) Make designated fly spaces, and (2) Allow flight when accompanied by someone who's trained and who can lose their certification if they break certain rules regarding safety and privacy.
Because back when they cost €400, they were only bought by serious hobbyists who spent a lot of time practising flying them in limited ways before going anywhere near a public place, and they were very careful about not crashing.
At today's prices, they get bought as gifts for people with a passing interest and it's no huge loss if they crash into a house or crash land on a road.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone emails me, there's no way they can delete that mail.
I guess this only works with mail sent to Gmail accounts? So using a gmail address now has the disadvantage that senders can delete mails you've got in your inbox?
One reason is that they need to listen to a broad range of people. How does changing patent policy affect small businesses? The national economy? Research? Venture capitalists?
It's not practical to hire experts on all aspects of every policy are which might come up for discussion during their term. Or if they hire them just when necessary, what do these experts do the rest of the time? Well, they need a job that pays them for the 95% of the time when the politician doesn't need them, and then they're not unbiased.
And, when politicians want to know what small businesses think of a proposal, why not talk to someone who small businesses have chosen to work for them as a representative? That's a lobbyist, and it's the exact person they should talk to.
The problem is that certain lobbyists are getting listened to too much (big businesses), and others not at all (consumers, SMEs, citizens).
You mean advisors?
Consultants?
Independent parties who don't try to sway the opinion of the person they are talking to in the process?
They can't have an advisor for every single issue. Take the topic of software patents for example. Even if they had an army of advisors, enough to include a software advisor and a patents advisor, the chances are small that either of these is going to have the in depth knowledge of software patents that an expert in software patents has. And they shouldn't just listen to one person, so now they need multiple advisors on the very specific topic of software patents - a topic which may or may not come up during their term.
And should they really make laws affecting software developers, patent owners, and software users without talking to some people from these three groups? Or do you expect them to also have some software developers on staff (who happen to understand the patent aspects) just in case this topic comes up in their term?
I think it's right that politicians talk to groups that represent the stakeholders. (But where it goes wrong is that some stakeholders get too much time, and others get none. In my example, the former would be big patent owners, and the latter would be users of software.)
The assassin analogy is a good one. But if you accept that some honest lobbyists are necessary (which I argued in my 2nd post just above) then it gets complicated when you try to prove which lobbyists are dishonest. Microsoft produces public documents saying software patents are great, and I think those documents are misleading and inaccurate, but how do make a law saying Microsoft isn't allowed say what they say?
First off, to enforce such a law, you'd have to be able to know what Microsoft is saying. Can you make a law saying that all meetings have to be recorded? What about meetings outside of office hours?
I wouldn't necessarily be against such laws, but it's going to be difficult to find a formula that's practical.
"Ban lobbying" isn't that great a solution.
Oh this case is rotten to the core, but I'm talking about lobbyists in general. There are good ones and they can have a role that's great for democracy.
One case I worked on involved software patents, which combines two things that most politicians know very little about. I can only imagine what the Microsofts and IBMs told them, but for my part I've a clean conscience.
The politicians really had no clue how patents work or how software development works or how the two interact or even the current situation of how the patent holders and the software developers were interacting. And it's not like there's a book they could each read and be experts in a week or two, and they can't have experts an every topic in the staff. That's why there's a role for lobbyists, but of course there's tonnes of room to improve how the system works (who gets access, etc.).
Lobbying isn't evil in itself. I've worked as a lobbyist. Politicians aren't experts in every domain, so a domain expert explaining the issue can be very useful.
George Lakoff explained it very well in a video that I can't find now. He said "lobby reform" is wrongly framing the debate. Groups should be allowed to say what they want politicians to do, but it's the politicians who must take this info and then do what the public wants. "Congressional integrity" is the term I think he said we should use for this debate. If our political representatives had more integrity, then lobbyists wouldn't be such a problem.
If there's a problem that politicians are taking bribes (be it campaign contributions or the promise of a well-paid job later), the party with the most guilt is the politician. We shouldn't let them off the hook by saying "It's the lobbyist's fault for offering the bribe!"
In the video I saw, he didn't go into how to reform "congressional integrity" but off the top of my head maybe he'd suggest politicians be subject to greater financial transparency, and maybe be banned for a certain time from taking jobs in certain industries whose legislation they worked on as a politician.
There are already designated places to fly: Public spaces and private areas that operators own or have permission.
Great. So people who enjoy flying drones can go there. There's no need to declare the whole city a designated fly zone.
"Don't be a dick" rule of life. Sure, there are people who violate that
And what happens? Nothing. You like asking for examples: have you an example of anti-harassement or peeping tom laws being succesfully used against people who are just being a dick with a drone? I'm guessing the case would have to be either extreme or very very clear and the annoyed person would have to have gotten lucky in finding the operator, and the person would have to have enough spare time and energy to want to go through a court case. That's not reliable.
there is nothing novel about a quadcopter over any other piece of technology
Of course there is. The combination is new and greatly changes the risk level and how effective the old laws are.
That's like saying we should have no laws about computer networks because networks are just pieces of plastic and metal. "Stop blocking my freedom to use plastics!"
If you don't want to fly a drone over a busy street between two apartment blocks, how is my proposal a restriction?
> Do you not have hobbies? How would you feel if someone wanted to arbitrarily restrict them?
One of my hobbies is sitting at my open window getting some sun. Yes, I would be annoyed if I couldn't do this in peace because people were allowed fly camera drones in front of my window. And I bet women would be much more annoyed than I would be.
The vast majority of the debate on quadcopters is the camera, so it's really not that different from a DSLR or smartphone camera.
They're completely different, as I explained, they go in different places, one can have no visible link to its controller.
> People don't stand in front of houses filming through the window.
Do you not know about 'Peeping Tom' laws?
They're good laws, and they're one deterrent. Another deterrent is that standing in front of someone's house filming through the window is socially frowned on. With drones, it can be hard to find the operator, so the peeping tom laws might prove unenforceable in a given case, and the operator doesn't have to stand where the camera is, so the social aspects are no deterrent.
If people enjoy flying, then let's make designated places where they can do that. Not over footpaths, roads, people's gardens or near to apartments and houses.
> Don't most places already have laws against those things?
I live in an apartment block. Facing me is another apartment block and between the two buildings there's a busy footpath, then a busy road, and another busy footpath. Nothing else. If someone loses control of an RC, there's an unacceptable chance of injury and could include causing a car crash.
Anyone who flys a drone over so many people is either an idiot who doesn't understand safety, or they know it's unsafe but they specifically want to be near people.
In terms of convicting someone of illegal drone use, you're right that anti-harassment could be tried. Problem is that they might or mightn't work, you might have a hard time proving it, and the case could take years. If you want to prevent the incident, it's better to have a clear law "No drones here".
> Because the abuses of the few shouldn't cause a restriction on the
> freedoms of the many.
Drone are used by only a small group, so we're talking about restricting a small group to safeguard the safety and privacy of the many.
Further, drones as a good clean fun hobby can be played with in designated areas (not over the busy road in front of my apartment window).
(Unrelated note: I see we have a "-1 Disagree but can't say why" mod in the room. My comments, including ones that never got up-modded, are getting "-1 Overrated".)
> Your final paragraph is contradictory.
No. Peeping etc. are just examples of what I'd be aiming to prevent with such rules.
> "because drone" legislation overkill
I live in an apartment block. Directly in front of me is a busy road and on the other side is another apartment block. This is the wrong place for someone to have fun with a drone. It's all cars, pedestrians, and apartments. Anyone flying a drone over the road in front of my apartment is either unsafe and/or is targeting people in some way.
Laws against peeping etc. are hard to enforce. Proof is a nightmare. But a blanket ban of flying drones on or above the busy street in front of my apartment is much easier to enforce.
Making a specific law is also sometimes beneficial because by being clear about what's not allowed, you can avoid people doing illegal stuff either because they didn't understand or because they thought no one could prove they were peeping/harassing/etc. If you say "No drones", then it's clear. Better to prevent the crime than to (try to) solve it.
> handheld camera
The two technologies are abviously different. Handheld cameras don't fly in front of people's apartment windows (privacy) and don't fly over people's heads or over roads where they can cause an accident (safety). Handheld cameras are also easily traceable to their operator. This makes enforcing peeping laws etc. more practical, and it means social norms regulate much bad usage (people don't stand in front of houses filming through the window).
Where have you personally observed them 'being a pest'?
I've never been attacked by a lion. May I have an opinion on whether people in my city should be allowed keep lions as pets?
Also, putting regulations in place is easier before a practice becomes commonplace. There are no nuclear power plants in Ireland. Is banning them when they don't exist ok? Or should the government let companies build a load of nuclear plants before thinking of whether they're a good idea?
Keep in mind that I'm for a blanket ban *with exceptions*. I.e. putting limits on what drone owners can do. If the things I propose banning (such as peeping, tracking, stalking, harassing) aren't happening, then why do you oppose the banning those things?
First, that's because historically the number of RCs was microscopic.
Even recently, far more people are injured by balls than models.
But ball ownership is not going to explode in the coming years.
So we ban things that aren't exercise?
Nonsense. I never said that.
Voyeurism and general being-a-jerk needs less help.
Ahh yes, the "every quadcopter is spying on me" fiction.
And I never said that. I doubt anyone has ever said that.
The reality is ... not all models have cameras
Ones with cameras should be subject to rules that protect privacy and safety. Ones without cameras should just be subject to the rules about safety. That wasn't difficult.
Huh?
Everyone likes daylight, people don't want to close their curtains during the day.
And I've a big window where I can get some sun in the summer.
What do you find trollish about this?
> If there's a drone flying outside your window, you close the curtains.
No, I like daylight. And I like sunbathing in my apartment.
Things that are different should be considered separately.
It's true that there are plenty of hobbyists who like good clean fun, but that doesn't mean every new drone owner can do whatever they like. Drones are becoming a pest, so we should think of how to limit them so they're not a pest (a broad ban) and then we should think of how to allow the good clean fun hobbyists (exceptions such as designated fly areas, drone clubs, certification which involves training and can be revoked for breaches of safety and ethics rules).
> It prevents you from flying a palm-sized drone pretty much anywhere in a city.
Perfect.
And when a drone is buzzing around the window of my apartment, who do I complain to? Do I phone a national hotline where a call centre agent will ask me "And what does the drone look like, sir?" How would that work?
And does how does this help me delete the pictures the drone's been taking?
And what if the drone was taking pictures and I didn't spot it?
You might have good intentions, but that law is worthless. Start with a blanket ban, and then think of exceptions.
> far more people have been injured by balls than R/C models
First, that's because historically the number of RCs was microscopic.
Second, exercise is something we need to promote as much as possible. Voyeurism and general being-a-jerk needs less help.
> Why should I have to act illegally to retain all the freedoms I grew up with?
What we grew up with (i.e. how the world was until a few years ago) was that a very small number of hobbyists would buy these expensive things. They'd practise, they'd be very careful with their expensive toys, and they flew for the fun of flying rather than peeping (their RCs had no camera). The only ones I saw were in a certain part of the same park every Sunday.
That's what existed when we were growing up, and to preserve that we just have to create a few designated fly places.
A female friend doesn't want to take a certain bus any more because it goes through some rough areas and last year all the way home three guys were putting their hands in front of her face saying "I'm not touching you". She was pretty scared.
The drone users claiming they have a right to fly (and more importantly that this right shouldn't be limited) remind me of those guys.
That sounds good. I'm for first making a blanket ban, then thinking of exceptions. That's two worthwhile exceptions so far: (1) Make designated fly spaces, and (2) Allow flight when accompanied by someone who's trained and who can lose their certification if they break certain rules regarding safety and privacy.
Because back when they cost €400, they were only bought by serious hobbyists who spent a lot of time practising flying them in limited ways before going anywhere near a public place, and they were very careful about not crashing.
At today's prices, they get bought as gifts for people with a passing interest and it's no huge loss if they crash into a house or crash land on a road.
> Man a ban on tourist video drones would be terrible for sightseeing.
And yet sightseeing has thrived since forever and even today the 99% of the tourist population that has no drones still manages.
Ban them all, then think about exceptions (such as designated fly spaces: a part of a park, a football pitch when not being used, etc.).
> If you don't like drones buzzing around you, carry a damn slingshot and a pocket full of rocks! Don't be a crybaby!
Why should I now have to carry and use a slingshot just to keep the privacy I grew up with?
Ban all drones, I say. If it's just good clean fun of flying around, then let's make designated areas where hobbyists can do that. Not where I live.
First bring in a complete ban, then look at making exceptions.