8 ms·

It's happening. Cameras everywhere all the time. No more anonymity in public soon. Hopefully this will improve behavior generally, though at possibly great c

It's happening. Cameras everywhere all the time. No more anonymity in public soon. Hopefully this will improve behavior generally, though at possibly great cost.

righthand 2y ago
People will move out of the cities onto land where they can remove/shoot down cameras. The cities and policing are too aggressive with their big brother tactics, thinking FUD about crime is a good enough reason to take away privacy from people. It is actually a minority opinion that the country wants this but no one votes in local elections anymore so the minority wins.
- Loughla 2y ago
  It's illegal, even in rural areas, to shoot down drones. Also it's not drones that are an issue. It's ring cameras and car cameras and CCTV cameras.
  - righthand 2y ago
    It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Please enlighten me where in the US you could legally shoot down someone else's drones. >Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it. If you're interested in protecting your privacy, why would it ever be a good idea to commit a bunch of felonies, by illegally discharging firearms to take down cameras? Even if you somehow didn't get caught, you're painting a big target on your back by committing all those crimes and putting everyone in the area on edge.
    - Loughla 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure it's the FAA that dictates that one. It's federally illegal. And how motivated are they? Well I'm assuming someone will complain that you shot down their drone. And most police are very interested in firearm crimes. The FAA is also very interested in people who shoot at aircraft of any kind.
      - K0balt 2y ago
        It’s remarkable how many people seem to think that drones are fair game. Also, thank you for a kind and thoughtful comment you made to me in the past. It’s heartening to be reminded that civil decency is alive and well. I hope you have a memorable and fruitful day.
        righthand 2y ago
        It hasn’t been proven that drones aren’t fair game. So go ahead and down vote me for noticing this, but just because the FAA says the airspace is for any aircraft doesn’t mean I can’t shoot down your drone on my property in rural Nebraska and get away with it. It will be on the feds to pursue a low level crime not worth their time. Until it’s proven you can’t shoot down a spy drone, then you can shoot down a spy drone. How do I know it’s not some Chinese spy drone? I’m just doing my part to protect my country. Really the “not uh the FAA” stuff is irrelevant.
        K0balt 2y ago
        The FAA will -absolutely- charge you with a federal crime if the attack on aircraft infrastructure is reported to them. Now, presumably, someone flying a drone that would actually report such a thing would also be following the relevant FAA regulations regarding being a licensed pilot and operating within the legal framework of drone operations, and they would likely also have video evidence making it easy to prosecute the felon in question. The FAA takes drone operations with equal seriousness as private aircraft operations, and drones and pilots must be licensed by the FAA unless they weigh under 250 grams. It was the Wild West. It’s not anymore. FAA inspectors are notoriously bored and will pursue any case they think they can win, especially when it comes to actions against aviation infrastructure. If you fly a drone illegally you can face federal fines up to $75000. But shooting one down is an actual federal crime punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and very punitive fines. Now under 250 grams (and unregistered)? Idk if the FAA would get involved. But the drone owner might take you to small claims court, and assuming they were operating within the law you would very likely lose. But if it’s got an N-Number and you shoot it down, I would prepare to get my door knocked down. Its like the ATF, It’s not so much a matter of how much they care, it’s more a matter of asserting their jurisdiction and control. It’s an easy win against someone who used a firearm to destroy a federally registered aircraft. But, IANAL, if you decide to try it out let me know how that goes for you.
    - K0balt 2y ago
      Drones are legally classified as aircraft. 18 U.S. Code § 32 makes it specifically illegal to damage or interfere with the operation of aircraft. The FAA takes this quite seriously, as not taking it seriously compromises their position of being able to regulate drones per se. Lax enforcement of protection of drones as aircraft is a potential legal argument that efforts to regulate drone activity outside of the scope of interference with manned aircraft are similarly deprecated in importance and legitimacy.
      - righthand 2y ago
        So you agree, I can shoot down a drone over my property and make an argument to get away with it and there isn’t enough legal reason or capital to pursue. There may come a day where I would get in trouble but I think right now spies are smart enough not to mass surveil with drones.
        K0balt 2y ago
        Not sure where you get that, but enjoy.
- klyrs 2y ago
  > People will move out of the cities onto land where they can remove/shoot down cameras People interested in method Mad Max LARPing are significantly overrepresented on HN.
  - righthand 2y ago
    Drones, country where owning a gun is right. I see no post apocalyptic societal leap needed to get to something like this happening. People interested in fiction as the only match for predictions, are significantly overrepresented on HN. Please reference at me that “life will find a way”.
    - klyrs 2y ago
      Where you're certainly correct that "people" will move out to the country because of this, it's your insinuation that their number will be noteworthy that I find suspect. And, as it turns out, high prevalence of gun ownership and radically inappropriate use of guns is not unique to either the city nor the country.
      - righthand 2y ago
        Yes my prediction remains to be seen if there is a dramatic effect. People can still leave nyc, the city can still grow in population and get terrible for surveillance free life. And people can still leave to avoid that. It doesn’t have to be a substantial event. It’s like ad blockers, a lot of people don’t use them doesn’t mean there aren’t a significant portion of the population that doesn’t like ads. And who cares if my circumstances are unique to the US or not. The article is about the US. So in the realm of reaction to increased surveillance, I’m referring to the US. But if we want to be pendantic, Mad Max doesn’t even occur in the US, so it’s not even a relevant comparison I would be making if I were making that comparison.
        klyrs 2y ago
        Mad Max explores the possible consequences of your "I can shoot anything my bullets feel like hitting" brand of libertarianism. You can't invalidate an analogy by taking it quite so literally. Is my analogy a stretch? Yes, if you keep your bullets within your property line. But fantasizing about moving to the country where you can shoot whatever thing you don't like at this moment is an entire trope that is broadly painted with the Mad Max brush But your property line is irrelevant. You can't shoot down a high elevation surveillance drone. Drones with moderate elevation, at the property line, can take very high resolution pictures from a wealth of vantage points. Keep the bullets within your property line, and you've lost.
- kibwen 2y ago
  > People will move out of the cities onto land where they can remove/shoot down cameras. No, this doesn't help in the slightest unless you're moving to an isolated compound with no contact with the outside world. As soon as you get in your car to drive to the grocery store, you'll be subject to all the same surveillance. And if you're going to try to organize in your community to tear down and outlaw all the cameras between your house and the grocery store, you'll have an easier time of organizing in denser areas (not necessarily cities, but at least small towns).
  - righthand 2y ago
    A lot of small towns never installed the surveillance beyond a few old ladies. There are plenty of small towns with tiny populations that would love for people to move in and have no intention of ruining their neighbors lives. Of course the idea isn’t perfect but the visual imagery people imagine suggests otherwise. People are enjoying their youth dumping data to be resold not because they can’t do anything about it but because there has been no consequences yet. That changes when your data is a direct pipe to law enforcement. The entire thing is a illogical reaction, surveillance and moving away.

It's happening. Cameras everywhere all the time. No more anonymity in public soon. Hopefully this will improve behavior generally, though at possibly great cost.

righthand 2y ago

People will move out of the cities onto land where they can remove/shoot down cameras. The cities and policing are too aggressive with their big brother tactics, thinking FUD about crime is a good enough reason to take away privacy from people. It is actually a minority opinion that the country wants this but no one votes in local elections anymore so the minority wins.

Loughla 2y ago
It's illegal, even in rural areas, to shoot down drones. Also it's not drones that are an issue. It's ring cameras and car cameras and CCTV cameras.
- righthand 2y ago
  It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Please enlighten me where in the US you could legally shoot down someone else's drones. >Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it. If you're interested in protecting your privacy, why would it ever be a good idea to commit a bunch of felonies, by illegally discharging firearms to take down cameras? Even if you somehow didn't get caught, you're painting a big target on your back by committing all those crimes and putting everyone in the area on edge.
  - Loughla 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure it's the FAA that dictates that one. It's federally illegal. And how motivated are they? Well I'm assuming someone will complain that you shot down their drone. And most police are very interested in firearm crimes. The FAA is also very interested in people who shoot at aircraft of any kind.
    - K0balt 2y ago
      It’s remarkable how many people seem to think that drones are fair game. Also, thank you for a kind and thoughtful comment you made to me in the past. It’s heartening to be reminded that civil decency is alive and well. I hope you have a memorable and fruitful day.
      - righthand 2y ago
        It hasn’t been proven that drones aren’t fair game. So go ahead and down vote me for noticing this, but just because the FAA says the airspace is for any aircraft doesn’t mean I can’t shoot down your drone on my property in rural Nebraska and get away with it. It will be on the feds to pursue a low level crime not worth their time. Until it’s proven you can’t shoot down a spy drone, then you can shoot down a spy drone. How do I know it’s not some Chinese spy drone? I’m just doing my part to protect my country. Really the “not uh the FAA” stuff is irrelevant.
        K0balt 2y ago
        The FAA will -absolutely- charge you with a federal crime if the attack on aircraft infrastructure is reported to them. Now, presumably, someone flying a drone that would actually report such a thing would also be following the relevant FAA regulations regarding being a licensed pilot and operating within the legal framework of drone operations, and they would likely also have video evidence making it easy to prosecute the felon in question. The FAA takes drone operations with equal seriousness as private aircraft operations, and drones and pilots must be licensed by the FAA unless they weigh under 250 grams. It was the Wild West. It’s not anymore. FAA inspectors are notoriously bored and will pursue any case they think they can win, especially when it comes to actions against aviation infrastructure. If you fly a drone illegally you can face federal fines up to $75000. But shooting one down is an actual federal crime punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment and very punitive fines. Now under 250 grams (and unregistered)? Idk if the FAA would get involved. But the drone owner might take you to small claims court, and assuming they were operating within the law you would very likely lose. But if it’s got an N-Number and you shoot it down, I would prepare to get my door knocked down. Its like the ATF, It’s not so much a matter of how much they care, it’s more a matter of asserting their jurisdiction and control. It’s an easy win against someone who used a firearm to destroy a federally registered aircraft. But, IANAL, if you decide to try it out let me know how that goes for you.
  - K0balt 2y ago
    Drones are legally classified as aircraft. 18 U.S. Code § 32 makes it specifically illegal to damage or interfere with the operation of aircraft. The FAA takes this quite seriously, as not taking it seriously compromises their position of being able to regulate drones per se. Lax enforcement of protection of drones as aircraft is a potential legal argument that efforts to regulate drone activity outside of the scope of interference with manned aircraft are similarly deprecated in importance and legitimacy.
    - righthand 2y ago
      So you agree, I can shoot down a drone over my property and make an argument to get away with it and there isn’t enough legal reason or capital to pursue. There may come a day where I would get in trouble but I think right now spies are smart enough not to mass surveil with drones.
      - K0balt 2y ago
        Not sure where you get that, but enjoy.
klyrs 2y ago
> People will move out of the cities onto land where they can remove/shoot down cameras People interested in method Mad Max LARPing are significantly overrepresented on HN.
- righthand 2y ago
  Drones, country where owning a gun is right. I see no post apocalyptic societal leap needed to get to something like this happening. People interested in fiction as the only match for predictions, are significantly overrepresented on HN. Please reference at me that “life will find a way”.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    Where you're certainly correct that "people" will move out to the country because of this, it's your insinuation that their number will be noteworthy that I find suspect. And, as it turns out, high prevalence of gun ownership and radically inappropriate use of guns is not unique to either the city nor the country.
    - righthand 2y ago
      Yes my prediction remains to be seen if there is a dramatic effect. People can still leave nyc, the city can still grow in population and get terrible for surveillance free life. And people can still leave to avoid that. It doesn’t have to be a substantial event. It’s like ad blockers, a lot of people don’t use them doesn’t mean there aren’t a significant portion of the population that doesn’t like ads. And who cares if my circumstances are unique to the US or not. The article is about the US. So in the realm of reaction to increased surveillance, I’m referring to the US. But if we want to be pendantic, Mad Max doesn’t even occur in the US, so it’s not even a relevant comparison I would be making if I were making that comparison.
      - klyrs 2y ago
        Mad Max explores the possible consequences of your "I can shoot anything my bullets feel like hitting" brand of libertarianism. You can't invalidate an analogy by taking it quite so literally. Is my analogy a stretch? Yes, if you keep your bullets within your property line. But fantasizing about moving to the country where you can shoot whatever thing you don't like at this moment is an entire trope that is broadly painted with the Mad Max brush But your property line is irrelevant. You can't shoot down a high elevation surveillance drone. Drones with moderate elevation, at the property line, can take very high resolution pictures from a wealth of vantage points. Keep the bullets within your property line, and you've lost.
kibwen 2y ago
> People will move out of the cities onto land where they can remove/shoot down cameras. No, this doesn't help in the slightest unless you're moving to an isolated compound with no contact with the outside world. As soon as you get in your car to drive to the grocery store, you'll be subject to all the same surveillance. And if you're going to try to organize in your community to tear down and outlaw all the cameras between your house and the grocery store, you'll have an easier time of organizing in denser areas (not necessarily cities, but at least small towns).
- righthand 2y ago
  A lot of small towns never installed the surveillance beyond a few old ladies. There are plenty of small towns with tiny populations that would love for people to move in and have no intention of ruining their neighbors lives. Of course the idea isn’t perfect but the visual imagery people imagine suggests otherwise. People are enjoying their youth dumping data to be resold not because they can’t do anything about it but because there has been no consequences yet. That changes when your data is a direct pipe to law enforcement. The entire thing is a illogical reaction, surveillance and moving away.