Crazy Lady Attacks Drone Pilot at Beach
- Thread starter jwuman
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 51
The initial "knee-jerk" police response against the drone pilot, is exactly why "privacy laws" written like those in Texas ..... are too ambiguous.
Any LEO can cite you if he/she thinks your "intent is to spy on people", and you are left to pay the ticket or pay to fight it in court.
Keep in mind that DJI helped in negotiating the Texas law (admittedly as the lesser of evils) and while I certainly don't mean to point any negative finger at DJI for doing that (it was probably their only move) it is a significant indication of the unreasonable capitulations that 'only' drone flyers (and not ground based videographers/photographers) will need to swallow, in any uphill battles that are to come, if we can even hope to keep being able to fly these at places that are the most photo/viddy worthy.
The ability of the uninitiated public to 'totally' miss the similarities of these and ground based photo-video equipment, and the fact that they are 'exactly' the same as any other means of taking "vacation images" under the conditions of the linked video, is based solely on the fact that they are airborne, and an ignorant public maintains an hysterical level of prejudicial ... and unjustified fear/discrimination towards them.
But .... that fear and prejudice is real, and will be at the heart of the upcoming battles to use them as freely as any other camera.
Peeping Tom laws are already on the books, and IMHO: the flying camera requires no further distinction, nor any new privacy laws.
If you get caught using one to viddy Mary Jame bathing nude in the privacy of her home pool, I'll flip the switch on you myself.
The 'only' legitimate arguable aspect of flying camera use is the safety of flying over people, but I fear that that legitimate discussion will be buried under the paranoia of the easily manipulated herd mentality of the uneducated, and IMHO: historically all time, most stupid public ever.
I know ...I'm preaching to the choir, so ..... rant off .
Any LEO can cite you if he/she thinks your "intent is to spy on people", and you are left to pay the ticket or pay to fight it in court.
Keep in mind that DJI helped in negotiating the Texas law (admittedly as the lesser of evils) and while I certainly don't mean to point any negative finger at DJI for doing that (it was probably their only move) it is a significant indication of the unreasonable capitulations that 'only' drone flyers (and not ground based videographers/photographers) will need to swallow, in any uphill battles that are to come, if we can even hope to keep being able to fly these at places that are the most photo/viddy worthy.
The ability of the uninitiated public to 'totally' miss the similarities of these and ground based photo-video equipment, and the fact that they are 'exactly' the same as any other means of taking "vacation images" under the conditions of the linked video, is based solely on the fact that they are airborne, and an ignorant public maintains an hysterical level of prejudicial ... and unjustified fear/discrimination towards them.
But .... that fear and prejudice is real, and will be at the heart of the upcoming battles to use them as freely as any other camera.
Peeping Tom laws are already on the books, and IMHO: the flying camera requires no further distinction, nor any new privacy laws.
If you get caught using one to viddy Mary Jame bathing nude in the privacy of her home pool, I'll flip the switch on you myself.
The 'only' legitimate arguable aspect of flying camera use is the safety of flying over people, but I fear that that legitimate discussion will be buried under the paranoia of the easily manipulated herd mentality of the uneducated, and IMHO: historically all time, most stupid public ever.
I know ...I'm preaching to the choir, so ..... rant off .
What really annoys me about all this privacy ******** is nearly every single person is walking around with a camera on their phone and nobody gives a toss while they could be taking pictures of anything, but put it in the air and people get arsy.
:evil:
:evil:
In this day and age of ever higher and higher quality, publicly accessible satellite and street views of the world (such as through GoogleEarth, Google StreetView, Bing, etc.), what on earth is the rational objection to overflights of UAV's?
Also consider the fact that anyone's property that is within 20-60 miles of an airport is in full view to countless unknown viewers who fly overhead.
They say some of the satellites can read a motor vehicle license plate--but those aren't usually publicly accessible.
If privacy is a concern to some regarding some objections to UAV overflights, then what shouldn't routine overflights of aircraft and satellites also be an objection by the same people?
Also consider the fact that anyone's property that is within 20-60 miles of an airport is in full view to countless unknown viewers who fly overhead.
They say some of the satellites can read a motor vehicle license plate--but those aren't usually publicly accessible.
If privacy is a concern to some regarding some objections to UAV overflights, then what shouldn't routine overflights of aircraft and satellites also be an objection by the same people?
jwuman said:
Thanks. Sometimes I forget that we're not talking about rational, intelligent human beings.
Similar threads
