4 ms·

In reply to your original comment: Yes, I think it's a step in that direction. Am I wrong? Change my view please, I'd love this to be about a cool new way to s

In reply to your original comment: Yes, I think it's a step in that direction. Am I wrong? Change my view please, I'd love this to be about a cool new way to survey the land from up above! ..or even an awesome network (eventually) of drones delivering things, or a rapid response network for emergency supplies locally... or just traffic detection, aerial recon for environmental situations. So much stuff this could be used for. EDIT: The initial comment was: 'Do you actually think the government is going to abuse this , it's just a commercial FAA license' (or smth similar)

randallsquared 12y ago
Well, governmental agencies didn't ask permission from the FAA to fly drones, anyway, right? I don't think this changes anything for them.
- hitchhiker999 12y ago
  If you're OP: Dude stop posting, deleting, changing, and then re-deleting your comments. You are making valid points, there's no need to do this, even if I don't agree with you, these are valid points.
  - randallsquared 12y ago
    Sadly, I'm not OP. :/
- mikecb 12y ago
  I'd argue that the rules are the same for the government and private citizens. Specifically in the law enforcement context, in Florida v. Riley, evidence obtained by observation from the air was admitted only because the police were operating an aircraft in a way that any ordinary citizen could: "Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more." A slightly older but similar case, Ciraolo, said "The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye." Both included an important distinction that the police were observing from a lawful vantage point, where anyone else could lawfully observe the same things. So, there's that. Whether the government has more latitude to use airspace in non-standard ways during emergencies and exigencies is a different question, just as they can legally run a red light for the same reasons.

randallsquared 12y ago

Well, governmental agencies didn't ask permission from the FAA to fly drones, anyway, right? I don't think this changes anything for them.

hitchhiker999 12y ago
If you're OP: Dude stop posting, deleting, changing, and then re-deleting your comments. You are making valid points, there's no need to do this, even if I don't agree with you, these are valid points.
- randallsquared 12y ago
  Sadly, I'm not OP. :/
mikecb 12y ago
I'd argue that the rules are the same for the government and private citizens. Specifically in the law enforcement context, in Florida v. Riley, evidence obtained by observation from the air was admitted only because the police were operating an aircraft in a way that any ordinary citizen could: "Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more." A slightly older but similar case, Ciraolo, said "The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye." Both included an important distinction that the police were observing from a lawful vantage point, where anyone else could lawfully observe the same things. So, there's that. Whether the government has more latitude to use airspace in non-standard ways during emergencies and exigencies is a different question, just as they can legally run a red light for the same reasons.