3 ms·
Nope, no thanks. You don't get to intrude on my privacy because you want to make it easier on you to catch some bad actor that is breaking the law. For you gun
by GiorgioG 7y ago
Nope, no thanks. You don't get to intrude on my privacy because you want to make it easier on you to catch some bad actor that is breaking the law.
For you gun owners out there, how would you like your concealed weapons tracked this way. F* that noise.
- macintux 7y agoHow exactly are you exercising your privacy by flying a dangerous object with a camera over other peoples' property?
- GiorgioG 7y agoIf I’m on my property flying at 50 feet, the government does not have a right to keep tabs on my activity without a warrant. Do you disagree?
- salawat 7y agoI'd say the better way to think about it is "The government has no implicit right to be aware of my whereabouts at all times." Stuff like automated license plate scanning is controversial because of the fact it enables this type of wholesale surveillance. And if the government doesn't do it, it just availed itself of third-party doctrine. I'm personally torn. I don't generally agree with any scheme through which a surveillance infrastructures implemented; heck, I don't even like what license plates have become used for. Yet I do sympathize with the problem of lack of employable measures against drones in emergencies. Hell, I'd probably be happier with less license B.S. and more implicit acknowledgement that if your drone gets in the way of something major, it will be slagged, and you're out a drone. Then again, that approach just encourages arms races...