3 ms·
Agree with that, however this is a case with very little precedent - there needed to be an investigation to get to the conclusion nothing was wrong as it obviou
by wastedhours 6y ago
Agree with that, however this is a case with very little precedent - there needed to be an investigation to get to the conclusion nothing was wrong as it obviously did concern a lot of people.
For me, that's part of the role of these bodies, ensure that something that looks sketchy actually (or potentially in this case) isn't. It's unchartered territory for people to have random flying things buzzing over the skies at night (and feel it's an entirely valid thing to be concerned about), whereas an annoying neighbour with some tools is well established.
- UncleEntity 6y ago> Agree with that, however this is a case with very little precedent - there needed to be an investigation to get to the conclusion nothing was wrong as it obviously did concern a lot of people. Anything that isn't specifically illegal is legal by default. They determined no illegal activities were conducted by flying a fleet of drones in a low-population rural area so...
- wastedhours 6y ago> They determined no illegal activities were conducted by flying a fleet of drones in a low-population rural area so... And they determined that by investigating (which is what we're discussing here). I'm not arguing about it's legality, just that they determined its legality by investigating something reported by genuinely concerned people.