4 ms·

If drones have cameras and are hovering above someone's property I'd argue that's an extra incentive to the property owners to do something about it... unless w

If drones have cameras and are hovering above someone's property I'd argue that's an extra incentive to the property owners to do something about it... unless we're saying it's perfectly legal to spy on anyone's property from above.

op00to 1y ago
Most localities have laws against invading someone’s privacy. There don’t need to be special laws for every specific type of surveillance.
- gigel82 1y ago
  I think more legal clarifications are needed here. If someone comes into your property to mount a trail cam or spy device, I believe you're allowed to remove it (even in a destructive manner). Not sure why the FAA insists a spy device that happens to hover a couple feet above is entitled to more protections...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Brian_K_White 1y ago
    Because projectiles don't stop at any particular distance and can reach vehicles with humans which are flying over other humans, all of which were innocent of any spying, and most people are complete shit at judging size and distance when looking at objects in the air. (lots of great examples of this with the mystery drones in nj a while back) I would like to shoot them down too but then I became 12 and a half years old instead of just 12. As a policy that has to just apply across the board by default, of course the rule has to simply be be that you can not shoot at things in the air. I have no idea how bird hunting is handled but I bet it simply fails a logic test and shouldn't be allowed for the exact same reasons. Now a tazer or a net or harpoon, all with physically limited tethers... Well there can be no safety argument about whacking something with a baseball bat, and anything with a tether that isn't rocket powered with 1000 feet of range is basically as safe for legit aircraft as a kid with a bat. IE it doesn't matter how inept the yahoo is, their capacity for harm to others is limited to a few people physically very near them, which is the same danger evrryone is to everyone else all the time.
    - ty6853 1y ago
      >I have no idea how bird hunting is handled but I bet it simply fails a logic test and shouldn't be allowed for the exact same reasons. Bird hunting is handled with #8+ bird shot, which at 45+ degree angle it is essentially at terminal velocity by the time it comes down, considering they are basically BBs it is mildly unsafe coming down (as in you'd have to be incredibly unlucky) anywhere within maybe a couple hundred yards at worst and essentially completely safe beyond that.
      - Brian_K_White 1y ago
        Makes sense. Thanks.
zdragnar 1y ago
It generally is. How else do you think Google gets all those satellite pictures for maps?
- rurban 1y ago
  Google has no satellites, the state has. They got those photos for free, probably in exchange for better software.
  - Blapzr 1y ago
    There's companies with imaging satellites that sell their data to Google and Microsoft. Also a lot of the imagery on maps and Co is not satellite at all but aerial photography which they buy from various private companies who do do aerial surveying.

op00to 1y ago

Most localities have laws against invading someone’s privacy. There don’t need to be special laws for every specific type of surveillance.

gigel82 1y ago
I think more legal clarifications are needed here. If someone comes into your property to mount a trail cam or spy device, I believe you're allowed to remove it (even in a destructive manner). Not sure why the FAA insists a spy device that happens to hover a couple feet above is entitled to more protections...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Brian_K_White 1y ago
  Because projectiles don't stop at any particular distance and can reach vehicles with humans which are flying over other humans, all of which were innocent of any spying, and most people are complete shit at judging size and distance when looking at objects in the air. (lots of great examples of this with the mystery drones in nj a while back) I would like to shoot them down too but then I became 12 and a half years old instead of just 12. As a policy that has to just apply across the board by default, of course the rule has to simply be be that you can not shoot at things in the air. I have no idea how bird hunting is handled but I bet it simply fails a logic test and shouldn't be allowed for the exact same reasons. Now a tazer or a net or harpoon, all with physically limited tethers... Well there can be no safety argument about whacking something with a baseball bat, and anything with a tether that isn't rocket powered with 1000 feet of range is basically as safe for legit aircraft as a kid with a bat. IE it doesn't matter how inept the yahoo is, their capacity for harm to others is limited to a few people physically very near them, which is the same danger evrryone is to everyone else all the time.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    >I have no idea how bird hunting is handled but I bet it simply fails a logic test and shouldn't be allowed for the exact same reasons. Bird hunting is handled with #8+ bird shot, which at 45+ degree angle it is essentially at terminal velocity by the time it comes down, considering they are basically BBs it is mildly unsafe coming down (as in you'd have to be incredibly unlucky) anywhere within maybe a couple hundred yards at worst and essentially completely safe beyond that.
    - Brian_K_White 1y ago
      Makes sense. Thanks.

zdragnar 1y ago

It generally is. How else do you think Google gets all those satellite pictures for maps?

rurban 1y ago
Google has no satellites, the state has. They got those photos for free, probably in exchange for better software.
- Blapzr 1y ago
  There's companies with imaging satellites that sell their data to Google and Microsoft. Also a lot of the imagery on maps and Co is not satellite at all but aerial photography which they buy from various private companies who do do aerial surveying.