No, it isn't. You have no "right" to post on Facebook. You speech isn't being censored, you're free to post it elsewhere..
You are arguing for what IS. Not necessarily what should be.
When the telephone was invented it too was established as private businesses. It wasn't a utility. It wasn't a common carrier. The FCC didn't even exist.
If Mr. Bell and whoever else owned the exchanges wanted to listen to your calls, or censor them, and they could have figured out how to record the calls, or censor them... they could have done so legally. It wasn't the government listening it. It wouldn't be the government censoring the calls. Indeed operators originally could listen in on calls, even interrupt calls to connect a priority call... it was company policy not to listen in or repeat things that they heard, but they could do it and it wasn't illegal. And if you didn't like the possibility of a Bell operator listening in or repeating it, you could write a letter instead.
Look how regulated telecom is now. For better and for worse. But on the for better side we absolutely have all kinds of rights surrounding the terms of use of the service, protection from warrantless wiretaps, privacy expectations against the phone company listening in with legal force behind them, as well as protections to access -- for example the telephone company must provide you service pretty much as long as you pay your bill and don't absue the connection itself. You can talk shit about them all you want and they can't cut your service... etc.
And this is -gasp- a private company! What about Mr. Bell, and his successors and their actual rights to decide what is and isn't allowed on their platforms?!!
Turns out the needs of society and the benefits to society of telecom regulation FAR outweigh any benefit to society from the usual rules for private enterprises.
You see where I'm going with this right?
I don't like it... it appears you don't like it, but that's our opinion on the matter. Our opinions don't get to override other's actual rights.
Major "Social media platforms" are just the next interation of communications. And as they gain traction and replace the phone networks and so forth; society has every right and even a duty to shape the terms of use and place obligations on thier operators for the benefit of society. Too many people too easily lose sight of this necessity.
Just as privately owned restaurants have to accommodate handicapped individuals with ramps and wider bathrooms and they have to submit to inspections from the health inspector who sets all kinds of rules on temperatures, storage, and food handling procedures that they have to follow if they want to serve food to the public... the requirements override the 'actual rights' of the owner to do whatever he wants with his restaurant.
So too can social media giants be regulated to accommodate freedom of speech, if we collectively decide it would be beneficial to the public as whole to do so.
What this story is covering is NOT about American government corruption and overreach. It is about GCHQ corruption and overreach.
And therefore what is the problem with it exactly?
Long story short, every government has the responsibility to spy on every other government
Every government has a responsibility to protects its national security, and that can involve spying on other governements. But it is an absurd waste of resources to spy on every member of every government everywhere all the time. Canada, for example, is not threatening the US. The UK is a longtime ally. The US should be keeping tabs on these countries and others, monitoring their policies, profiling key people, etc. But they don't need to hack their email and tap their phones; not unless there are some serious red flags. Instead they do it as a matter of course. That's a waste of resources. Resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.
I fully expect GCHQ to spy on me as I am not one of their citizens.
Because dedicating resources to spying on strikethree's phone conversations with his grandmother is a good use of a Brit's taxpayers money? No. Of course not. The money would be better spent elsewhere. I fully expect the GCHQ to have the authority to try and spy on you if it needs to. But I would expect its not in the UK's interests to actually do it... what is the return on that effort? Assuming you aren't a legitimate threat to the security of the UK... the return is ZILCH.
The UK public should be as disgusted at the GCHQ as you should be at the NSA.
If he had kept his release of information strictly to what the American government was doing illegally,
Who decides what was illegal or not? The NSA? They'd decided everything was legal; or at least legal enough that they could argue it was legal; or perhaps if not strictly legal.... that there were extenuating circumstances that made it ok in this case... ". Who was Snowden to 2nd guess them on it? Deciding he rely on the NSA to determine what was legal would be would be a pretty pointless position to take; nothing would be released ever.
Snowden should be the judge for himself? If so, we are faulting him for not having the arrogance to decide for the entire country which information should be released or not. That's a pretty heavy burden to lay at his feet, and how could you possibly be satisified trusting his judgement. So that's a fascinating position to take too.
So that leaves what he actually did... give it to the press; to disseminate it to the public; you know so we can decide for ourselves like adults. If we decide not every detail was necessary, that's fine. Its good to know that perhaps not everything the NSA did was a shitshow. But there was so much wrong with the NSA, that seeing it all, so we have the big picture, and the context, so we can see where the boundaries were crossed, and decide for ourselves. That seems like the best option by far to me.
Facebook is a private company. Facebook can "censor" whatever they want. There is no free speech issue.
Of course there is a free speech issue. Speech is being censored.
I agree there is no law being broken, and no legal challenge to bring against facebook. It's their site and their rules.
However, perhaps it should be illegal. Perhaps if a 'social media' site reaches a certain critical mass then it should assume some additional responsibilities to protect free speech. If lots of people are using facebook as their primary means of communication, then private entity or not, common carrier or not, it starts to matter.
Your 'its a private company' argument is simplistic at best. What happens to society if enough of the world is privatized? Does that mean we should just lay down and accept censorship.
Imagine a world where the phone company and the postal service have died out, replaced solely by private couriers, and social media companies. Are you willing to completely cede the ability to have a political discussion with anyone outside the room simply because socialmedia company won't let you post, courier company won't carry your letters.
If HP, Xerox, and Brother etc start producing smart printers that won't print 'offensive' content. Will you defend them as private companies and if you don't like it don't buy the printers!? Will you point out, that you can still use a paper and pencil so everything is fine.
That's just silly. You sit there in your little box claiming that since the law isn't being broken everything is fine. But everything is not fine, the world is changing, norms of communication are changing... the law needs to change with it.
Essentially... if we agree that facebook has become an important 'space' for society to discuss news, share opinions, and generally communicate with eachother -- then it stands to reason that we should protect freedom of speech on that hub, whether it is a private company or not, for the good of the society.
Just as a dictionary does not define words, but instead reflects how they are used; so it is with the law. The law does not DEFINE what is right and wrong -- it is written to serve the needs of society. And in the 21st century, it is arguable that society needs freedom of speech legal protections baked into their use of major social media sites.
There is no journalistic duty to do anything... Facebook isn't a news source, it's social media.
"Facebook News Feed - Welcome To The Stories That Matter The objective of News Feed is to show you the stories that matter the most to you, every time. " newsfeed.fb.com
Why can't it be *both* ? It's certainly trying very hard to get you use facebook as news source. So why exactly shouldn't it be considered one?
the public does not have any right to know our national secrets
That's some fine circular reasoning you've got going there.
If the government had been acting legally, it wouldn't have had any misbehaviour to keep secret. And declaring its illegal and undesirable activities to be secret absolutely does not deny the public the right to know about them.
. Just because we fund it does not mean we are entitled to know everything the government does. A government with no secrets cannot stand.
Followed by a straw man. Nobody is arguing that the government should have NO secrets. But it should not have had THESE secrets.
and has compromised many legitimate intelligence operations that we the people have tasked the intelligence community to engage in.
"we the people" asked for no such thing, and do not support MANY of these operations."
If a few criminals and whatnot go free, so fucking what... that is the entire premise of our justice system, that it is better to let a criminal or even a terrorist go then to imprison the innocent. That is a premise the NSA seemed to abandon, and since it was keeping it a secret the fact that it was abandoned couldn't be debated by the public.
The NSA did not have a mandate to spy on our closest allies and our own citizens en masse. No to trade intel with our allies for intel on our own citizens to get around what few legal restraints they were still observing. Full stop.
Nope, he was the one entrusted with a security clearance. He is the one who signed the NDR. And he is the one who handed classified data on our intelligence gathering systems to individuals not cleared to receive it
"to individuals not cleared to receive it" aka "the press" aka "a proxy to the public".
He did exactly what you said, and not only does he deserve a pardon, he deserves a medal. There is simply no way the VAST majority of what he released shouldn't have been known by the public funding it; our internal surveillance, and even the extent to which we collaborate with other countries, and the extent to which we spy on allies...
"No. Snowden deliberately dumped these documents. You don't get out of murder charges when you hire the hitman."
What a strained analogy that is.
If you report (and provide proof) of government corruption, overreach, and general malfeasance to the legitimate press; and the press sorts thorugh it, verifies it, and determines what is newsworthy and publishable... that is an important function of the press.
Snowden definitely broke the law taking the information, but I think he should be pardoned.
But holding him responsible for what the press does is as ridiculous as holding you responsible for someone the police kill after you report a crime to them.
a) its not automatically a crime when the police kill someone. b) even when the police are in the wrong, its STILL not your fault for reporting the original crime to the police.
If we reduce government spending and reduce the tax rates (which government employees hate), then we would also be making an impact on poverty, as well as empowering the people.
Because people without money or jobs are struggling to pay their taxes?
Or are you some sort of nutjob who thinks the only reason these people are poor and/or can't find work is that rich people, by paying taxes, are prevented from giving charitably and/or creating jobs for them?
It simply doesn't work like that. There is no correlation between countries with lower taxes and a decrease in poverty.
the reason I set peoples home page to google is that it not cluttered with that shit.
now it's just going to be about:blank
seriously, when i pull up google.com its because i *want* to search for *something*, it is not ever because I'm looking to be distracted from the thing I was searching for with random shit trending on twitbooktube.
, but the craziness occurs because many kids go from not being allowed to drink, ever, to having unrestricted access.
I disagree. The craziness occurs because its a cultural norm. My parents let me try alcohol (in controlled moderation) from the time I was 10-12 or so. A glass of wine or a beer with dinner at family events was fine; although i didn't much care for beer. I was allowed to try brandy, rum, gin, etc. They even let me get myself drunk a couple times to 'experience' it.
So I wasn't going from no access to unrestrictred access (and nor were any of my close friends). But the parties I went to, everyone showed up with a 40 of 151 rum or tequila or vodka, a two-four of beer; and by the end of the night every one left still standing was doing tequila shots.
Its cultural; its nothing to do access to alcohol, we simply 'want' to emulate the 'wild party' experiences we've been led to believe we should be having by movies, by our older peers and siblings that did it, that we've been ingrained to think that's what 'a college party is supposed to be', etc.
Which is my point about how we should view the Tesla autopilot, and even you agree that you are capable of that level of attention.
The tesla is only used on thie highway, and it generally drives perfectly fine. Do you think the guy who ran into a truck while watching Harry potter would have done that if the car drove like it was under the control of a brand new novice driver? Of course not, he'd had the car for quite some time, and had many hours experience letting it drive and it drove just fine.
While he SHOULD have treated it like a new driver; hour after hour, mile after mile of it doing everything right -- you won't stay in high alert. You can't. New drivers constantly trigger your high alert attention with their jerky movements, lane positioning, and other issues... if they do everything right for 3 months, you simply are not going to be on constant high alert. Its just not human nature. At best you'll be paying attention the way any relaxed passenger does; if your sitting there looking out the front window you'll see things, but that is NOT high alert. That is NOT ready to take over with instant notice. And if something distracts you, you'll be distracted because the driving is taking care of itself.
Sure, you absolutely can avoid going full retard and firing up a harry potter movie, and sitting in the seat passively watching the world sail by is going to catch a lot of tesla's mistakes. But if it misses a bend in the road and slams into a gaurd rail or crosses into oncoming traffic... that's going to happen FAST. And unless you are sitting there at high alert almost expecting a mistake like that, you won't react fast enough. And you can't sit on an interstate crossing the country for long stretches ready to jump in like that.
The average human being isn't wired for that.
The average human being can drive the car for long stretches because the constant micro adjustments continually engage them.
Scientists have written papers on this stuff.
Once I feel that the Tesla autopilot has "mastered it" through software updates and the like, then yes, I'll pay much less attention. But just like with a kid learning to drive, that won't happen until it's been proven to have mastered it.
Again... the guy who ran into a truck watching harry potter didn't buy a tesla and then pull out his DVD player. The car had convinced him, through thousands of miles of demonstration, that it was perfectly capable of driving itself,... until it wasn't.
I imagine that the sporadic attentiveness that you speak of is a direct result of knowing or assuming that the driver has everything under control. But, that's just it, no where has anyone said that the Tesla Autopilot has everything under control 100% of the time.
The car gets it right enough of the time, that it's proven to these owners that it does. If it made lots of little mistakes every time people turned it on people would pay at lot more attention.
I am not a physicist, and don't *really* understand what they are theorizing, except that they are suggesting that special relativity applies to the engine instead of newtonian mechnics. (which isn't really a surprise).
If you can follow the math and the judge the theory, have at it...
The amount of attention required, which is basically just keeping an eye on the road and what's going on around you, is exactly what is required when teaching someone to drive.
A 'driving instructor' scenario is quite different; for starters its their paid job to *evaluate your driving* -- which is very different from being a passenger. So they are constantly evaluating your speed, control, position and how you perform each manuver; they may be taking notes on it. They do it for 20-30 minutes at a time, with breaks, usually in city traffic, etc, etc.
They aren't doing it for hours on end on road trips.
As a parent teaching a child, if they are still new then yeah you can be very attentive because you are basically driving as surrogate through them and they are doing all kinds wrong, but once they've pretty much mastered it, and you are comfortable with their driving and your just in the car so they can practice, your mostly a passenger and just at heightened alert sporadically or if you notice something; or are trying to help them with a particular maneuver.
It's what I do when I'm a passenger in the front seat of the car, for hours on end. It's exactly what my spouse does when she's the passenger and I'm driving, for hours on end.
That's just it, no your not.
Your are sporadically attentive and you don't even realize when you aren't being attentive. Yes, my wife will call out a light change if she thinks I'm not reacting to it, or a cyclist if she thinks I might not see it, etc, etc. But she'll also send text messages, look something up online, play with the radio, space out and look out the window.
I definitely appreciate that she's a 2nd set of eyes; and she absolutely makes a positive contribution the total situational awareness, and i don't even dispute that some of the time she's 'ready to take over', but not 'every minute of every trip', not even close. She takes breaks from paying attention all the time; she'll be on higher alert in a new city in weird traffic when helping me navigate; but on some highway we've been on a hundred times...she'll pull out her phone and see what's playing at the theatre without giving it a 2nd thought.
FFS dude, they're all derived from common law; you realize you are grasping at straws here by trying to limit this now to Virginia... but ok fine... let's play your little game:
We have previously recognized that an action for common law trespass to land derives from the "general principle of law [that] every person is entitled to the exclusive and peaceful enjoyment of his own land, and to redress if such enjoyment shall be wrongfully interrupted by another.
We have also recognized: [A] trespass is an unauthorized entry onto property which results in interference with the property owner's possessory interest therein. Thus, in order to maintain a cause of action for trespass to land, the plaintiff must have had possession of the land, either actual or constructive, at the time the trespass was committed. In addition, to recover for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove an invasion that interfered with the right of exclusive possession of the land, and that was a direct result of some act committed by the defendant. Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise. Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417, 423, 448 S.E.2d 403, 406 (1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Significantly, for the purposes of this case, Virginia applies the modified common law rule applicable to surface water. Mullins, 226 Va. at 589, 311 S.E.2d at 112. Under this rule, "surface water is a common enemy, and each landowner may fight it off as best he can, provided he does so reasonably and in good faith and not wantonly, unnecessarily or carelessly." Id. (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). We observed in McGehee v. Tidewater Railway Co.: Two general rules prevail in the United States with
emphasis mine. But let me repeat it here again for you:
"Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise."
Are we done yet?
If I recall correctly, you earlier cited criminal code as the law which may require the stricter test for the defendant to get jailtime over it, but trespass is also a civil matter; and he can definitely be subject to a lawsuit based on it.
Drone use may also fall under the nuisance law. I read another virginia opinion where 'dust and noise' from a neighboring property under construction was rejected as a trespass suit, but the plaintiff was invited to refile it as a nuisance suit. That said, I think drones still fall under trespass as the operator is in much more direct control over what the drone does, and the drone represents a real physical invasion in a way dust particulates don't. Of course, until someone actually takes one to court in virginia it will be an open question. But as a legal theory it is pretty sound.
Also, how is paying close attention for an entire trip an unreasonable / unrealistic expectation?
People cannot sit there at the ready for hours on end.
If it was, it'd be an unreasonable and/or unrealistic expectation to teach someone how to drive, which involves the exact kind of attention as monitoring the autopilot system. Yet, millions of people do this daily without trouble.
No, actually driving; is a continual feedback loop that is completely different from sitting there "pepetually ready to drive but not actually driving".
But how much does this actually happen? Do you need a video out port for that conference room weekly? Monthly?
Does it matter? The less often I need one the more likely I won't have it with me when I do. FWIW It happens often enough that if I could buy a macbook pro line with a few more ports I absolutely would.
In any case you seem to be 'moving the goal posts'.
And perhaps more importantly, how common is your job?
Pretty common.
I'd expect anyone doing anything substantially IT related would run into the same needs now and again.
While I personally have done customer facing presentations with my laptop; many of my peers who don't do that much still do presentations internally to business units, at meetings, etc. Would we all pay $10 more and put up with our laptop being 2mm thicker for a gigabit port, another USB port, and another video port type? Hell yeah. And 9$ of that 10 would still be profit for apple.
Tiger, an avid golfer, goes down to the local course and begins to play. He intends for his first shot to land on the fairway and the shot lands perfectly in the middle of the fairway. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to Tiger, the land that the fairway is on does not belong to the golf course. It belongs to Arnold. Tiger will be liable here because he intended for the ball to land on Arnoldâ(TM)s property. It is true that Tiger did not know that the fairway was on Arnoldâ(TM)s property but, for purposes of intent, Tiger did intend to hit the ball onto Arnoldâ(TM)s property. Therefore, he is liable.
As you can see from this example, the intrusion onto the plaintiffâ(TM)s land can be committed by personal entry onto the property, or it can be committed by causing some object (or another person) to enter the property. See Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners 30 N.W.2d 358 (Mich. 1948).
Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land without permission, or remains upon the land, or places or projects any object upon the land.
Here's another... this time an actual appeals case:
Since 1981, the defendants have owned and operated a private golf course in Rehoboth known as the Middlebrook Country Club (Middlebrook). â In the late 1990's, the plaintiffs moved into newly constructed homes adjacent to the ninth hole of the course. â After moving into their homes, both plaintiffs discovered that errant golf balls struck by golfers playing the course came onto their properties with alarming frequency, and after unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution with the defendants, the plaintiffs âsought injunctive relief and damages in the Superior Court. â After a trial without a jury, a judge of that court concluded that the defendants' operation of the golf course did not support the plaintiffs' nuisance claim, denied the requested relief, and directed entry of judgment dismissing the complaint.3 âBecause the recurrent entry by golf balls onto the plaintiffs' properties constitutes a continuing trespass, we conclude that the trial judge erred in denying injunctive relief âSee Hennessy v. Boston, 265 Mass. 559, 561, 164 N.E. 470 (1929); âFenton v. Quaboag Country Club, Inc., 353 Mass. 534, 538, 233 N.E.2d 216 (1968).
emphasis mine... plenty of others.
The criminal code as written has LONG been interpreted by the courts to treat a 'the person enters or remains on or in property of another' as including invasions by objects that the person controls.
At this point, I think you've got to agree with me that the drone can absolutely be ruled a trespass to land if it is low enough to violate the property owners airspace. What exactly that height is, is up in the air, but court precedent including one to the supremes give us property rights to at least 80'
I've seen it called "trespass" but it isn't, by any law.
It really is. Read the law.
Anytime someone causes a person or object to enter onto the property of another its trespass.
If your neighbor throws his empty beer bottles over the fence into your yard, he would be charged with trespassing.
Two kids throwing a ball and it accidentally landing in your yard is also a trespass. No prosecutor would ever charge them with trespassing; they're kids and they didn't intend to do it.
But age them up a few years, and have the neighborhood thugs on each side of you deliberately harassing you by throwing a football over your back yard... then yeah, they'd get charged with trespassing too. Even though they never set foot in the yard.
A drone is no different. Its trespassing. The only difference is that the operator isn't necessarily anywhere around. (And there is a grey area as to where your airspace rights begin; but there are some precedents establishing some rights for property owners at low altitudes.)
. If two kids playing throw a ball over a fence, the owner of the house can't shoot the ball, or the kids if they try to get it.
Of course you are right. But why would they have any need to shoot the ball? It lands in your yard, rolls to a stop, and then its pretty easy to retrieve. What possible reason would you have for shooting it.
Likewise, when the kids come to retrieve it; obviously you can't shoot them for simply trespassing, without warning, and even 'self defense' wouldn't stand up to scrutiny vs a couple unarmed 8 year old neighbor kids dressed in swim trunks retrieving their ball in broad daylight.
I'm not advocating shooting the drone drone for any reason *except as necessary to retrieve it*; so that it can be turned into the police. The shooting is not necessary to retreive the kids ball so its not permitted, but it IS necessary to retrieve the drone, so it should be permitted in that context.
And a permenant solution to a temporary problem is generally not allowed.
Basically, I am defending the owners right to seize the object, turn it into the police, and complain to the police about the incident. I think we mostly agree this is reasonable. And if the owner could seize the object without shooting at it, we'd probably be on the same page, more or less.
The sticking point is that without shooting it they can't retrieve it. I agree with you that shooting it is... overkill. But if the alternative is "do nothing" and suffer the violation while the trespasser trespasses with impunity and without the ability for recourse -- that's not acceptable either. Thus overkill (especially since its an inanimate object) seems more reasonable than the alternative. Ultimately the object shouldn't be over the property, and if the owners can't be identified and the drone can't simply be grabbed, then bringing it down with the minimum damage and force possible... should be allowed.
Shooting it down, represents those minimums, unless you can think of something else. A garden hose might work in some circumstances, and would be preferable, but its doesn't have the range unless, and I doubt you could bring one down with a hose unless you could get within 15'. For an object whizzing along the top of your tree lines... or on a large country acreage... get real.
I'm just pointing out reality.
The reality is that a trespass really has occurred, AND its also illegal to destroy someone else's property.
And in general the courts have ruled that someones property trespass doesn't entitle you to cause needless damage to their property. (You cannot shoot someones car if they park it on your yard.) But, the argument here is that shooting it down is not 'needless' or 'vindictive' damage to the drone; it is incidental damage caused by retrieving the drone the only way that it can be realistically retrieved.
There are various scenarios where it becomes 'abandoned' and you can claim it. But its not as simple as wait 3 weeks and its yours.
Often you have to show good faith effort to notify the owner to pick it up; and failure to dot the i's and cross the t's in your jurisdiction for the precise circumstances of the abandonment it can bite you in the ass.
In this case the shooter should have recorded the license plate etc and called the police.
But that is obviously not a general solution; since there is no general assurance that someone is going to see the drone.
Why does your need for revenge trump the rights of everyone else?
a) The rights of everyone else to fly a camera around my yard? I don't recognize that being anyone's right.
b) Its not a need for 'revenge' it is a need to stop the violation. I am NOT actually in favor of shooting them down; but I don't really see a better option out there. If you can capture the drone without shooting it great. If you can accost the operators fantastic. But if you can't... ??
c) These people drove out to Robert Duvalls house in the country set up a card table on a turnaround... to fly a drone, because what? They really wanted to play with their toy, and they couldn't find a public space? And it never occurred to them to just ask the owner of a farm if they could fly around? Give me a break. They were being offensive in their behavior; and were showing total lack of regard for others. They were not innocent victims.
I don't get this; why care about the amount of ports?
The only place where you need any amount of ports, is at a desk right?
Generally speaking... no. I need a video out port in the conference room, and in customer conference rooms, and in hotel conference rooms. And i'd like to be able to just bring my laptop and have it work with the projector there; not have to remember a mini-displayport to something else adapter everywhere i go. (The 2015 at least has HDMI which is more usable.)
I need an ethernet port, and a serial port in the data closets and server rooms where the routers and switches are.
I need usb ports on the go in all kinds of situations.
The only place where you need any amount of ports, is at a desk right?
No. I a have a desktop computer on my desk. I practically never use my laptop at my desk.
You aren't allowed to slash all 4 tires to ensure it's immobile until you can call a tow truck to haul it away.
You can take its license plate down, record its VIN, take a few pics, etc. Also, the car isn't going to just up and leave unless the owner shows up. There is no need to 'immobilize' the car.
Now, 10 years from now when some kids hack an empty uber and set it to driving around in circles a farmers fields, you think it won't be stopped with force?
Perhaps throwing small rocks at the drone, or turning a hose on it would be appropriate. Something to indicate it's unwanted, but causes little to no direct damage (though may cause a crash, which would cause more damage).
So... birdshot a 30-50' is ok then?
The proper legal remedy is to follow it "home" and sue the owner.
How does that work? It moves faster than you, and isn't limited to passable terrain, fences, creeks, rivers, buildings...
Tesla's Autopilot functions at almost exactly the same level as an aircraft autopilot.
Except that most of the time an aircraft on autopilot is a mile or two from ANYTHING. Including the ground. And the parts of a flight where a plane is expected to be nearer to anything the pilot is paying a LOT more attention.
Mid-flight on a long haul, the pilot has to be there, and he has to be awake, but he can be filling out paperwork, reading aircraft manuals, checking maps, etc.
That's NOTHING like what a tesla driver can ever do. A tesla driver needs to be paying attention the same way a pilot does during an automated landing... the ENTIRE trip. Not only is that completely different from an aircraft pilot, its also an unreasonable / unrealistic expectation.
Slashdot Mirror
The restaurant owner is regulated due to safety issues. Actual, physical harm can occur from not following these regulations.
Let the underpinnings of freedom erode, just so long as nobody gets an upset stomach right?
Looks like you've got your priorities straight.
Facebook is an interactive blog.
And the telephone only let 2 people talk over long distances... yet look how regulated that is.
No, it isn't. You have no "right" to post on Facebook. You speech isn't being censored, you're free to post it elsewhere..
You are arguing for what IS. Not necessarily what should be.
When the telephone was invented it too was established as private businesses. It wasn't a utility. It wasn't a common carrier. The FCC didn't even exist.
If Mr. Bell and whoever else owned the exchanges wanted to listen to your calls, or censor them, and they could have figured out how to record the calls, or censor them... they could have done so legally. It wasn't the government listening it. It wouldn't be the government censoring the calls. Indeed operators originally could listen in on calls, even interrupt calls to connect a priority call... it was company policy not to listen in or repeat things that they heard, but they could do it and it wasn't illegal. And if you didn't like the possibility of a Bell operator listening in or repeating it, you could write a letter instead.
Look how regulated telecom is now. For better and for worse. But on the for better side we absolutely have all kinds of rights surrounding the terms of use of the service, protection from warrantless wiretaps, privacy expectations against the phone company listening in with legal force behind them, as well as protections to access -- for example the telephone company must provide you service pretty much as long as you pay your bill and don't absue the connection itself. You can talk shit about them all you want and they can't cut your service... etc.
And this is -gasp- a private company! What about Mr. Bell, and his successors and their actual rights to decide what is and isn't allowed on their platforms?!!
Turns out the needs of society and the benefits to society of telecom regulation FAR outweigh any benefit to society from the usual rules for private enterprises.
You see where I'm going with this right?
I don't like it... it appears you don't like it, but that's our opinion on the matter. Our opinions don't get to override other's actual rights.
Major "Social media platforms" are just the next interation of communications. And as they gain traction and replace the phone networks and so forth; society has every right and even a duty to shape the terms of use and place obligations on thier operators for the benefit of society. Too many people too easily lose sight of this necessity.
Just as privately owned restaurants have to accommodate handicapped individuals with ramps and wider bathrooms and they have to submit to inspections from the health inspector who sets all kinds of rules on temperatures, storage, and food handling procedures that they have to follow if they want to serve food to the public... the requirements override the 'actual rights' of the owner to do whatever he wants with his restaurant.
So too can social media giants be regulated to accommodate freedom of speech, if we collectively decide it would be beneficial to the public as whole to do so.
What this story is covering is NOT about American government corruption and overreach. It is about GCHQ corruption and overreach.
And therefore what is the problem with it exactly?
Long story short, every government has the responsibility to spy on every other government
Every government has a responsibility to protects its national security, and that can involve spying on other governements. But it is an absurd waste of resources to spy on every member of every government everywhere all the time. Canada, for example, is not threatening the US. The UK is a longtime ally. The US should be keeping tabs on these countries and others, monitoring their policies, profiling key people, etc. But they don't need to hack their email and tap their phones; not unless there are some serious red flags. Instead they do it as a matter of course. That's a waste of resources. Resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.
I fully expect GCHQ to spy on me as I am not one of their citizens.
Because dedicating resources to spying on strikethree's phone conversations with his grandmother is a good use of a Brit's taxpayers money? No. Of course not. The money would be better spent elsewhere. I fully expect the GCHQ to have the authority to try and spy on you if it needs to. But I would expect its not in the UK's interests to actually do it... what is the return on that effort? Assuming you aren't a legitimate threat to the security of the UK... the return is ZILCH.
The UK public should be as disgusted at the GCHQ as you should be at the NSA.
If he had kept his release of information strictly to what the American government was doing illegally,
Who decides what was illegal or not? .... that there were extenuating circumstances that made it ok in this case... ". Who was Snowden to 2nd guess them on it? Deciding he rely on the NSA to determine what was legal would be would be a pretty pointless position to take; nothing would be released ever.
The NSA? They'd decided everything was legal; or at least legal enough that they could argue it was legal; or perhaps if not strictly legal
Snowden should be the judge for himself? If so, we are faulting him for not having the arrogance to decide for the entire country which information should be released or not. That's a pretty heavy burden to lay at his feet, and how could you possibly be satisified trusting his judgement. So that's a fascinating position to take too.
So that leaves what he actually did... give it to the press; to disseminate it to the public; you know so we can decide for ourselves like adults. If we decide not every detail was necessary, that's fine. Its good to know that perhaps not everything the NSA did was a shitshow. But there was so much wrong with the NSA, that seeing it all, so we have the big picture, and the context, so we can see where the boundaries were crossed, and decide for ourselves. That seems like the best option by far to me.
Facebook is a private company. Facebook can "censor" whatever they want. There is no free speech issue.
Of course there is a free speech issue. Speech is being censored.
I agree there is no law being broken, and no legal challenge to bring against facebook. It's their site and their rules.
However, perhaps it should be illegal. Perhaps if a 'social media' site reaches a certain critical mass then it should assume some additional responsibilities to protect free speech. If lots of people are using facebook as their primary means of communication, then private entity or not, common carrier or not, it starts to matter.
Your 'its a private company' argument is simplistic at best. What happens to society if enough of the world is privatized? Does that mean we should just lay down and accept censorship.
Imagine a world where the phone company and the postal service have died out, replaced solely by private couriers, and social media companies. Are you willing to completely cede the ability to have a political discussion with anyone outside the room simply because socialmedia company won't let you post, courier company won't carry your letters.
If HP, Xerox, and Brother etc start producing smart printers that won't print 'offensive' content. Will you defend them as private companies and if you don't like it don't buy the printers!? Will you point out, that you can still use a paper and pencil so everything is fine.
That's just silly. You sit there in your little box claiming that since the law isn't being broken everything is fine. But everything is not fine, the world is changing, norms of communication are changing... the law needs to change with it.
Essentially... if we agree that facebook has become an important 'space' for society to discuss news, share opinions, and generally communicate with eachother -- then it stands to reason that we should protect freedom of speech on that hub, whether it is a private company or not, for the good of the society.
Just as a dictionary does not define words, but instead reflects how they are used; so it is with the law. The law does not DEFINE what is right and wrong -- it is written to serve the needs of society. And in the 21st century, it is arguable that society needs freedom of speech legal protections baked into their use of major social media sites.
There is no journalistic duty to do anything... Facebook isn't a news source, it's social media.
"Facebook News Feed - Welcome To The Stories That Matter
The objective of News Feed is to show you the stories that matter the most to you, every time. "
newsfeed.fb.com
Why can't it be *both* ? It's certainly trying very hard to get you use facebook as news source. So why exactly shouldn't it be considered one?
the public does not have any right to know our national secrets
That's some fine circular reasoning you've got going there.
If the government had been acting legally, it wouldn't have had any misbehaviour to keep secret. And declaring its illegal and undesirable activities to be secret absolutely does not deny the public the right to know about them.
. Just because we fund it does not mean we are entitled to know everything the government does. A government with no secrets cannot stand.
Followed by a straw man. Nobody is arguing that the government should have NO secrets. But it should not have had THESE secrets.
and has compromised many legitimate intelligence operations that we the people have tasked the intelligence community to engage in.
"we the people" asked for no such thing, and do not support MANY of these operations."
If a few criminals and whatnot go free, so fucking what... that is the entire premise of our justice system, that it is better to let a criminal or even a terrorist go then to imprison the innocent. That is a premise the NSA seemed to abandon, and since it was keeping it a secret the fact that it was abandoned couldn't be debated by the public.
The NSA did not have a mandate to spy on our closest allies and our own citizens en masse. No to trade intel with our allies for intel on our own citizens to get around what few legal restraints they were still observing. Full stop.
Nope, he was the one entrusted with a security clearance. He is the one who signed the NDR. And he is the one who handed classified data on our intelligence gathering systems to individuals not cleared to receive it
"to individuals not cleared to receive it" aka "the press" aka "a proxy to the public".
He did exactly what you said, and not only does he deserve a pardon, he deserves a medal. There is simply no way the VAST majority of what he released shouldn't have been known by the public funding it; our internal surveillance, and even the extent to which we collaborate with other countries, and the extent to which we spy on allies...
"No. Snowden deliberately dumped these documents. You don't get out of murder charges when you hire the hitman."
What a strained analogy that is.
If you report (and provide proof) of government corruption, overreach, and general malfeasance to the legitimate press; and the press sorts thorugh it, verifies it, and determines what is newsworthy and publishable... that is an important function of the press.
Snowden definitely broke the law taking the information, but I think he should be pardoned.
But holding him responsible for what the press does is as ridiculous as holding you responsible for someone the police kill after you report a crime to them.
a) its not automatically a crime when the police kill someone.
b) even when the police are in the wrong, its STILL not your fault for reporting the original crime to the police.
If we reduce government spending and reduce the tax rates (which government employees hate), then we would also be making an impact on poverty, as well as empowering the people.
Because people without money or jobs are struggling to pay their taxes?
Or are you some sort of nutjob who thinks the only reason these people are poor and/or can't find work is that rich people, by paying taxes, are prevented from giving charitably and/or creating jobs for them?
It simply doesn't work like that. There is no correlation between countries with lower taxes and a decrease in poverty.
the reason I set peoples home page to google is that it not cluttered with that shit.
now it's just going to be about:blank
seriously, when i pull up google.com its because i *want* to search for *something*, it is not ever because I'm looking to be distracted from the thing I was searching for with random shit trending on twitbooktube.
, but the craziness occurs because many kids go from not being allowed to drink, ever, to having unrestricted access.
I disagree. The craziness occurs because its a cultural norm. My parents let me try alcohol (in controlled moderation) from the time I was 10-12 or so. A glass of wine or a beer with dinner at family events was fine; although i didn't much care for beer. I was allowed to try brandy, rum, gin, etc. They even let me get myself drunk a couple times to 'experience' it.
So I wasn't going from no access to unrestrictred access (and nor were any of my close friends). But the parties I went to, everyone showed up with a 40 of 151 rum or tequila or vodka, a two-four of beer; and by the end of the night every one left still standing was doing tequila shots.
Its cultural; its nothing to do access to alcohol, we simply 'want' to emulate the 'wild party' experiences we've been led to believe we should be having by movies, by our older peers and siblings that did it, that we've been ingrained to think that's what 'a college party is supposed to be', etc.
ok.. so... im fine in principle if intel and microsoft aren't interested in porting chipset drivers backwards for old windows versions.
I presume that this isn't creating windows 10 lock in though; and that linux / bsd / etc will be fully supported?? Or am I mistaken?
And also, is if things are that different, does it mean only a next-generation kernel version will run on them?
I'm also curious about virtualization? Can old windows versions run in virtualization on these new chips?
Which is my point about how we should view the Tesla autopilot, and even you agree that you are capable of that level of attention.
The tesla is only used on thie highway, and it generally drives perfectly fine. Do you think the guy who ran into a truck while watching Harry potter would have done that if the car drove like it was under the control of a brand new novice driver? Of course not, he'd had the car for quite some time, and had many hours experience letting it drive and it drove just fine.
While he SHOULD have treated it like a new driver; hour after hour, mile after mile of it doing everything right -- you won't stay in high alert. You can't. New drivers constantly trigger your high alert attention with their jerky movements, lane positioning, and other issues... if they do everything right for 3 months, you simply are not going to be on constant high alert. Its just not human nature. At best you'll be paying attention the way any relaxed passenger does; if your sitting there looking out the front window you'll see things, but that is NOT high alert. That is NOT ready to take over with instant notice. And if something distracts you, you'll be distracted because the driving is taking care of itself.
Sure, you absolutely can avoid going full retard and firing up a harry potter movie, and sitting in the seat passively watching the world sail by is going to catch a lot of tesla's mistakes. But if it misses a bend in the road and slams into a gaurd rail or crosses into oncoming traffic... that's going to happen FAST. And unless you are sitting there at high alert almost expecting a mistake like that, you won't react fast enough. And you can't sit on an interstate crossing the country for long stretches ready to jump in like that.
The average human being isn't wired for that.
The average human being can drive the car for long stretches because the constant micro adjustments continually engage them.
Scientists have written papers on this stuff.
Once I feel that the Tesla autopilot has "mastered it" through software updates and the like, then yes, I'll pay much less attention. But just like with a kid learning to drive, that won't happen until it's been proven to have mastered it.
Again... the guy who ran into a truck watching harry potter didn't buy a tesla and then pull out his DVD player. The car had convinced him, through thousands of miles of demonstration, that it was perfectly capable of driving itself,... until it wasn't.
I imagine that the sporadic attentiveness that you speak of is a direct result of knowing or assuming that the driver has everything under control. But, that's just it, no where has anyone said that the Tesla Autopilot has everything under control 100% of the time.
The car gets it right enough of the time, that it's proven to these owners that it does. If it made lots of little mistakes every time people turned it on people would pay at lot more attention.
". The numpad (which isn't mechanical) can apparently be flipped over to become a touchpad. "
If it manages to violate conservation of momentum and that stands up to the inevitable scientific pig pile that follows, I'll be impressed.
One theory of how it works...
http://www.emdrive.com/theoryp...
I am not a physicist, and don't *really* understand what they are theorizing, except that they are suggesting that special relativity applies to the engine instead of newtonian mechnics. (which isn't really a surprise).
If you can follow the math and the judge the theory, have at it...
The amount of attention required, which is basically just keeping an eye on the road and what's going on around you, is exactly what is required when teaching someone to drive.
A 'driving instructor' scenario is quite different; for starters its their paid job to *evaluate your driving* -- which is very different from being a passenger. So they are constantly evaluating your speed, control, position and how you perform each manuver; they may be taking notes on it. They do it for 20-30 minutes at a time, with breaks, usually in city traffic, etc, etc.
They aren't doing it for hours on end on road trips.
As a parent teaching a child, if they are still new then yeah you can be very attentive because you are basically driving as surrogate through them and they are doing all kinds wrong, but once they've pretty much mastered it, and you are comfortable with their driving and your just in the car so they can practice, your mostly a passenger and just at heightened alert sporadically or if you notice something; or are trying to help them with a particular maneuver.
It's what I do when I'm a passenger in the front seat of the car, for hours on end. It's exactly what my spouse does when she's the passenger and I'm driving, for hours on end.
That's just it, no your not.
Your are sporadically attentive and you don't even realize when you aren't being attentive. Yes, my wife will call out a light change if she thinks I'm not reacting to it, or a cyclist if she thinks I might not see it, etc, etc. But she'll also send text messages, look something up online, play with the radio, space out and look out the window.
I definitely appreciate that she's a 2nd set of eyes; and she absolutely makes a positive contribution the total situational awareness, and i don't even dispute that some of the time she's 'ready to take over', but not 'every minute of every trip', not even close. She takes breaks from paying attention all the time; she'll be on higher alert in a new city in weird traffic when helping me navigate; but on some highway we've been on a hundred times...she'll pull out her phone and see what's playing at the theatre without giving it a 2nd thought.
FFS dude, they're all derived from common law; you realize you are grasping at straws here by trying to limit this now to Virginia... but ok fine... let's play your little game:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/...
----
We have previously recognized that an action for common law trespass to land derives from the "general principle of law [that] every person is entitled to the exclusive and peaceful enjoyment of his own land, and to redress if such enjoyment shall be wrongfully interrupted by another.
Tate v. Ogg, 170 Va. 95, 99, 195 S.E. 496, 498 (1938).
We have also recognized:
[A] trespass is an unauthorized entry onto property which results in interference with the property owner's possessory interest therein. Thus, in order to maintain a cause of action for trespass to land, the plaintiff must have had possession of the land, either actual or constructive, at the time the trespass was committed. In addition, to recover for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove an invasion that interfered with the right of exclusive possession of the land, and that was a direct result of some act committed by the defendant. Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise.
Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417, 423, 448 S.E.2d 403, 406 (1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Significantly, for the purposes of this case, Virginia applies the modified common law rule applicable to surface water. Mullins, 226 Va. at 589, 311 S.E.2d at 112. Under this rule, "surface water is a common enemy, and each landowner may fight it off as best he can, provided he does so reasonably and in good faith and not wantonly, unnecessarily or carelessly." Id. (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).
We observed in McGehee v. Tidewater Railway Co.:
Two general rules prevail in the United States with
emphasis mine. But let me repeat it here again for you:
"Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise."
Are we done yet?
If I recall correctly, you earlier cited criminal code as the law which may require the stricter test for the defendant to get jailtime over it, but trespass is also a civil matter; and he can definitely be subject to a lawsuit based on it.
Drone use may also fall under the nuisance law. I read another virginia opinion where 'dust and noise' from a neighboring property under construction was rejected as a trespass suit, but the plaintiff was invited to refile it as a nuisance suit. That said, I think drones still fall under trespass as the operator is in much more direct control over what the drone does, and the drone represents a real physical invasion in a way dust particulates don't. Of course, until someone actually takes one to court in virginia it will be an open question. But as a legal theory it is pretty sound.
Also, how is paying close attention for an entire trip an unreasonable / unrealistic expectation?
People cannot sit there at the ready for hours on end.
If it was, it'd be an unreasonable and/or unrealistic expectation to teach someone how to drive, which involves the exact kind of attention as monitoring the autopilot system. Yet, millions of people do this daily without trouble.
No, actually driving; is a continual feedback loop that is completely different from sitting there "pepetually ready to drive but not actually driving".
But how much does this actually happen? Do you need a video out port for that conference room weekly? Monthly?
Does it matter? The less often I need one the more likely I won't have it with me when I do. FWIW It happens often enough that if I could buy a macbook pro line with a few more ports I absolutely would.
In any case you seem to be 'moving the goal posts'.
And perhaps more importantly, how common is your job?
Pretty common.
I'd expect anyone doing anything substantially IT related would run into the same needs now and again.
While I personally have done customer facing presentations with my laptop; many of my peers who don't do that much still do presentations internally to business units, at meetings, etc. Would we all pay $10 more and put up with our laptop being 2mm thicker for a gigabit port, another USB port, and another video port type? Hell yeah. And 9$ of that 10 would still be profit for apple.
There. I've quoted my law. Care to quote the law you've based your opinion on?
Heh, my opinion is based on the same law actually. Lets look at how lawyers, courts, and the legal system actually treat it...
http://nationalparalegal.edu/p...
excerpt:
For example:
Tiger, an avid golfer, goes down to the local course and begins to play. He intends for his first shot to land on the fairway and the shot lands perfectly in the middle of the fairway. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to Tiger, the land that the fairway is on does not belong to the golf course. It belongs to Arnold. Tiger will be liable here because he intended for the ball to land on Arnoldâ(TM)s property. It is true that Tiger did not know that the fairway was on Arnoldâ(TM)s property but, for purposes of intent, Tiger did intend to hit the ball onto Arnoldâ(TM)s property. Therefore, he is liable.
As you can see from this example, the intrusion onto the plaintiffâ(TM)s land can be committed by personal entry onto the property, or it can be committed by causing some object (or another person) to enter the property. See Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners 30 N.W.2d 358 (Mich. 1948).
http://www.lawteacher.net/lect...
TRESPASS TO LAND
DEFINITION
Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land without permission, or remains upon the land, or places or projects any object upon the land.
Here's another... this time an actual appeals case:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-...
Since 1981, the defendants have owned and operated a private golf course in Rehoboth known as the Middlebrook Country Club (Middlebrook). â In the late 1990's, the plaintiffs moved into newly constructed homes adjacent to the ninth hole of the course. â After moving into their homes, both plaintiffs discovered that errant golf balls struck by golfers playing the course came onto their properties with alarming frequency, and after unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution with the defendants, the plaintiffs âsought injunctive relief and damages in the Superior Court. â After a trial without a jury, a judge of that court concluded that the defendants' operation of the golf course did not support the plaintiffs' nuisance claim, denied the requested relief, and directed entry of judgment dismissing the complaint.3 âBecause the recurrent entry by golf balls onto the plaintiffs' properties constitutes a continuing trespass, we conclude that the trial judge erred in denying injunctive relief âSee Hennessy v. Boston, 265 Mass. 559, 561, 164 N.E. 470 (1929); âFenton v. Quaboag Country Club, Inc., 353 Mass. 534, 538, 233 N.E.2d 216 (1968).
emphasis mine... plenty of others.
The criminal code as written has LONG been interpreted by the courts to treat a 'the person enters or remains on or in property of another' as including invasions by objects that the person controls.
At this point, I think you've got to agree with me that the drone can absolutely be ruled a trespass to land if it is low enough to violate the property owners airspace. What exactly that height is, is up in the air, but court precedent including one to the supremes give us property rights to at least 80'
I've seen it called "trespass" but it isn't, by any law.
It really is. Read the law.
Anytime someone causes a person or object to enter onto the property of another its trespass.
If your neighbor throws his empty beer bottles over the fence into your yard, he would be charged with trespassing.
Two kids throwing a ball and it accidentally landing in your yard is also a trespass. No prosecutor would ever charge them with trespassing; they're kids and they didn't intend to do it.
But age them up a few years, and have the neighborhood thugs on each side of you deliberately harassing you by throwing a football over your back yard... then yeah, they'd get charged with trespassing too. Even though they never set foot in the yard.
A drone is no different. Its trespassing. The only difference is that the operator isn't necessarily anywhere around. (And there is a grey area as to where your airspace rights begin; but there are some precedents establishing some rights for property owners at low altitudes.)
. If two kids playing throw a ball over a fence, the owner of the house can't shoot the ball, or the kids if they try to get it.
Of course you are right. But why would they have any need to shoot the ball? It lands in your yard, rolls to a stop, and then its pretty easy to retrieve. What possible reason would you have for shooting it.
Likewise, when the kids come to retrieve it; obviously you can't shoot them for simply trespassing, without warning, and even 'self defense' wouldn't stand up to scrutiny vs a couple unarmed 8 year old neighbor kids dressed in swim trunks retrieving their ball in broad daylight.
I'm not advocating shooting the drone drone for any reason *except as necessary to retrieve it*; so that it can be turned into the police. The shooting is not necessary to retreive the kids ball so its not permitted, but it IS necessary to retrieve the drone, so it should be permitted in that context.
And a permenant solution to a temporary problem is generally not allowed.
Basically, I am defending the owners right to seize the object, turn it into the police, and complain to the police about the incident. I think we mostly agree this is reasonable. And if the owner could seize the object without shooting at it, we'd probably be on the same page, more or less.
The sticking point is that without shooting it they can't retrieve it. I agree with you that shooting it is ... overkill. But if the alternative is "do nothing" and suffer the violation while the trespasser trespasses with impunity and without the ability for recourse -- that's not acceptable either. Thus overkill (especially since its an inanimate object) seems more reasonable than the alternative. Ultimately the object shouldn't be over the property, and if the owners can't be identified and the drone can't simply be grabbed, then bringing it down with the minimum damage and force possible... should be allowed.
Shooting it down, represents those minimums, unless you can think of something else. A garden hose might work in some circumstances, and would be preferable, but its doesn't have the range unless, and I doubt you could bring one down with a hose unless you could get within 15'. For an object whizzing along the top of your tree lines... or on a large country acreage... get real.
I'm just pointing out reality.
The reality is that a trespass really has occurred, AND its also illegal to destroy someone else's property.
And in general the courts have ruled that someones property trespass doesn't entitle you to cause needless damage to their property. (You cannot shoot someones car if they park it on your yard.) But, the argument here is that shooting it down is not 'needless' or 'vindictive' damage to the drone; it is incidental damage caused by retrieving the drone the only way that it can be realistically retrieved.
You are right.
There are various scenarios where it becomes 'abandoned' and you can claim it. But its not as simple as wait 3 weeks and its yours.
Often you have to show good faith effort to notify the owner to pick it up; and failure to dot the i's and cross the t's in your jurisdiction for the precise circumstances of the abandonment it can bite you in the ass.
In this case the shooter should have recorded the license plate etc and called the police.
But that is obviously not a general solution; since there is no general assurance that someone is going to see the drone.
Why does your need for revenge trump the rights of everyone else?
a) The rights of everyone else to fly a camera around my yard? I don't recognize that being anyone's right.
b) Its not a need for 'revenge' it is a need to stop the violation. I am NOT actually in favor of shooting them down; but I don't really see a better option out there. If you can capture the drone without shooting it great. If you can accost the operators fantastic. But if you can't... ??
c) These people drove out to Robert Duvalls house in the country set up a card table on a turnaround... to fly a drone, because what? They really wanted to play with their toy, and they couldn't find a public space? And it never occurred to them to just ask the owner of a farm if they could fly around? Give me a break. They were being offensive in their behavior; and were showing total lack of regard for others. They were not innocent victims.
I don't get this; why care about the amount of ports?
The only place where you need any amount of ports, is at a desk right?
Generally speaking... no. I need a video out port in the conference room, and in customer conference rooms, and in hotel conference rooms. And i'd like to be able to just bring my laptop and have it work with the projector there; not have to remember a mini-displayport to something else adapter everywhere i go. (The 2015 at least has HDMI which is more usable.)
I need an ethernet port, and a serial port in the data closets and server rooms where the routers and switches are.
I need usb ports on the go in all kinds of situations.
The only place where you need any amount of ports, is at a desk right?
No. I a have a desktop computer on my desk. I practically never use my laptop at my desk.
You aren't allowed to slash all 4 tires to ensure it's immobile until you can call a tow truck to haul it away.
You can take its license plate down, record its VIN, take a few pics, etc. Also, the car isn't going to just up and leave unless the owner shows up. There is no need to 'immobilize' the car.
Now, 10 years from now when some kids hack an empty uber and set it to driving around in circles a farmers fields, you think it won't be stopped with force?
Perhaps throwing small rocks at the drone, or turning a hose on it would be appropriate. Something to indicate it's unwanted, but causes little to no direct damage (though may cause a crash, which would cause more damage).
So... birdshot a 30-50' is ok then?
The proper legal remedy is to follow it "home" and sue the owner.
How does that work? It moves faster than you, and isn't limited to passable terrain, fences, creeks, rivers, buildings...
Tesla's Autopilot functions at almost exactly the same level as an aircraft autopilot.
Except that most of the time an aircraft on autopilot is a mile or two from ANYTHING. Including the ground. And the parts of a flight where a plane is expected to be nearer to anything the pilot is paying a LOT more attention.
Mid-flight on a long haul, the pilot has to be there, and he has to be awake, but he can be filling out paperwork, reading aircraft manuals, checking maps, etc.
That's NOTHING like what a tesla driver can ever do. A tesla driver needs to be paying attention the same way a pilot does during an automated landing ... the ENTIRE trip. Not only is that completely different from an aircraft pilot, its also an unreasonable / unrealistic expectation.