Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

  1. #1
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...e-surveillance

    Not that this affects us directly, but bad publicity on spy drones could get us in the crossfire and confusion. Not to mention some of us may be worried about this from a rights standpoint as well.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  2. #2
    Hossfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    New Caney, TX
    Posts
    5,906
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    Lots of stuff there, Sport. Thanks for pointing that out.

    This worries me big time: (from those hillicon blogs. [:-] )

    >>>>>>>>>
    Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to move toward allowing drones to fly alongside commercial aircraft in U.S. airspace by 2015.

    The FAA is planning a pilot program to test fly drones in six locations, but will not set the rules for what the unmanned aircraft can be used for.

    Law enforcement agencies and state and local governments have expressed a strong interest in unmanned aircraft, and are being courted as potential customers by the booming drone industry.
    <<<<<<<<<<<

    Downright scary. Actually commercial aviation is downright scary now. I get a lot of input and I definitely don't care for the current methods of air-carriers. Seeing a drone pull up beside you in formation would not be fun as far as I am concerned. [] It all points out that AMA and toy airplanes may well be the least thing we have to worry about within the once good ol' US of A. How long before the kids come home (I have grand-kids and neices and nephews from 5 to 25) and ask Mom/Dad for money for their new brown-shirts, and then ask, "Mom, Dad, what is a goose step?" [:@]

    Horrace Cain AMA L-93

    “Peace is the brief glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.\" T. Jefferson

  3. #3
    bradpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Apopka, FL
    Posts
    891
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    In all the discussion of privacy and police drones in the news, I have never seen anybody acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this in United States v Causby - 328 US 256 (1946) 

    While is is an old case it is still the precident ruling.

    In a 5-2 opinion authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the Court concluded that the ancient common law doctrine "has no place in the modern world." Justice Douglas noted that, were the Court to accept the doctrine as valid, "every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea." However, while the Court rejected the unlimited reach above and below the earth described in the common law doctrine, it also ruled that, "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere." Without defining a specific limit, the Court stated that flights over the land could be considered a violation of the Takings Clause if they led to "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." Given the damage caused by the particularly low, frequent flights over his farm, the Court determined that the government had violated Causby's rights, and he was entitled to compensation. (Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone died on April 22; Justice Robert H. Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision in the case, leaving the court with 7 members.)

    Subsiquent opinions have generally used a lower limit of 400' as to what constitutes "exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere".  As the FAA currently limits police UAV to no higher then 400', it seems to eliminate their use for survalence and still be able to have admittable evidence.

    I am sure this is a court case waiting to happen, but with the US Supreme Court precident on the side of the landowner having rights under the "Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment, the government has problems.

    Brad
     

    Brad

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    City
    Posts
    63
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    Given this: http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/1878563...type=printable


    Imagine the outcry if one comes up next to an aircraft in flight...

  5. #5
    cfircav8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hampton, IA
    Posts
    1,186
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    Similar outcry over the first cars driving next to horse drawn wagons I would guess. Cameras are everywhere even in the air (helicopters). How they are used is the real concern, drones just make it cheaper for us to pay (taxes) for what is already being done. The majority of drones that will be used will be for commercial communications and would fly a preplanned route at high altitude.
    The three most useless things to a pilot, the sky above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel on the ground.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Anytown
    Posts
    1,282
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.


    ORIGINAL: cfircav8r

    Similar outcry over the first cars driving next to horse drawn wagons I would guess. Cameras are everywhere even in the air (helicopters). How they are used is the real concern, drones just make it cheaper for us to pay (taxes) for what is already being done. The majority of drones that will be used will be for commercial communications and would fly a preplanned route at high altitude.
    Spoken like a good citizen/sheep.

    An inherrent distrust of government is vital for freedom to survive.

    K-Bob. The K is silent. \"The only time you can have too much fuel is if you are on fire\"

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    951
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.


    ORIGINAL: bradpaul

    In all the discussion of privacy and police drones in the news, I have never seen anybody acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this in United States v Causby - 328 US 256 (1946)
    While is is an old case it is still the precident ruling. (snipped)
    Brad
    Somebody did in this forum, a thread discussing a fracas between a homebuilder/owner and MA interests, cuppla years ago. Sport_Pilot??

    Anyway, let's hope if the Supremes do reconsider it, they include an exception for MA.











  8. #8
    cfircav8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hampton, IA
    Posts
    1,186
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    I never said to accept the intrusions, but instead you need to realize that drones have the potential to do more good than bad, and the bad will be done with or without them. Just like children politicians, and governments, need boundries set and to be continually reminded of those boundries. Your throwing the baby out with the bath water. Punish those that would misuse drones, not those that would use them for societies benefit, and just because they are making money doesn't mean it doesn't benefit you.
    The three most useless things to a pilot, the sky above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel on the ground.

  9. #9
    KidEpoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,681
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    we could get a US Constitutional amendment to decree
    The right of the people to keep and fly MA shall not be infringed
    and that still wont stop the bATF&E&MA from regulating/prohibiting/'tax'ing/banning (aka INFRINGING) MA

    just as they do with some of the 'arms' I want to 'keep and bear'. I dont see a constitutional amendment that says Fed Agencies can simply ban the public from bearing arms in airport, yet that is what it actually takes to trump the amendment saying we can. Not some unelected agency cabal writing regulations to countermand the constitution, not some legislative law to nullify a constitutional protection. The government, the media, and unfortunately the public are content with allowing unconstitutional stuff to happen all the time... usually in the name of 'public interest'. So the actual LAW and Constitution are of little concern these days, cause they ban/regulate protected stuff and now it seems they choose not to prosecute those violating US law.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Anytown
    Posts
    1,282
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.


    ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

    we could get a US Constitutional amendment to decree
    The right of the people to keep and fly MA shall not be infringed
    and that still wont stop the bATF&E&MA from regulating/prohibiting/'tax'ing/banning (aka INFRINGING) MA

    just as they do with some of the 'arms' I want to 'keep and bear'. I dont see a constitutional amendment that says Fed Agencies can simply ban the public from bearing arms in airport, yet that is what it actually takes to trump the amendment saying we can. Not some unelected agency cabal writing regulations to countermand the constitution, not some legislative law to nullify a constitutional protection. The government, the media, and unfortunately the public are content with allowing unconstitutional stuff to happen all the time... usually in the name of 'public interest'. So the actual LAW and Constitution are of little concern these days, cause they ban/regulate protected stuff and now it seems they choose not to prosecute those violating US law.
    +1

    K-Bob. The K is silent. \"The only time you can have too much fuel is if you are on fire\"

  11. #11
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    Some of thise drones are going to be really small. Below is a drone not a mosquito. It would be very hard to detect.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Db84392.jpg 
Views:	2 
Size:	37.0 KB 
ID:	1774188  
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    The Glorious Mid-West
    Posts
    262
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    But if I find one of those on my wall or my arm, I'm gonna smash it just the same as I would a real bug. That's gonna be a lot of tax payer's money imbedded in drywall and on the bottom of tennis shoes...
    Manager/Team Leader: Department of Redundancy Department

  13. #13
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    From the look if it, I am guessing the wing folds out and spins like a helicopter? Idon't think people normally swat a mosquito unless it lands on them so I doubt they would lose many. Land it on a nearby bookshelf somwhat above eyelevel and you wouldnever know it was there.
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aguanga, CA
    Posts
    951
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.


    ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

    From the look if it, I am guessing the wing folds out and spins like a helicopter? Idon't think people normally swat a mosquito unless it lands on them so I doubt they would lose many. Land it on a nearby bookshelf somwhat above eyelevel and you wouldnever know it was there.
    Or ornithopter? Interesting, Sport. Kinda illustrates there is a limit on what we individually can imagine for the future of the tech.

    CJ


  15. #15
    KidEpoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,681
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    Nice bugsized drone.

    Someone wanted to bring up the Causby deal,
    ok, lets play the Causby game-

    That Bugbot at 10000' clearly aint interfering with landowners use/enjoyment of their land.
    Nor would the Bugbot interfere with enjoyment at 1000'.
    Even at 400' it STILL aint bothering the landowner.
    Now when we get down to 100', we gotta ask just how the landowner would even know it was there
    seeing how the thing is dang near impossible to see at more than 20'.
    So, if you cant even see or hear the Bugbot when it is 50' above your property, just how can the landowner say (per Causby) his use/enjoyment of his land is being imposed upon?

    Sure we KNOW there are satellites looking at us from above, we know there are planes looking down at us, and we know even helicopters are looking at us from above... so why would it be any different for Bugbots looking down on us (from 50' rather than the satellites up in the orbitsphere). You know OF satellites looking at folks, but you cant tell if one is looking at you right now, just as you dont know if there is a Bugbot doing it or not.

    So thats the deal with Causby,
    folks cannot say at the same time that they are so obtrusive that property cant be enjoyed
    while claiming they are so unnoticeable that folks cant tell if they are being spied on.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Anytown
    Posts
    1,282
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.


    ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

    Nice bugsized drone.

    Someone wanted to bring up the Causby deal,
    ok, lets play the Causby game-

    That Bugbot at 10000' clearly aint interfering with landowners use/enjoyment of their land.
    Nor would the Bugbot interfere with enjoyment at 1000'.
    Even at 400' it STILL aint bothering the landowner.
    Now when we get down to 100', we gotta ask just how the landowner would even know it was there
    seeing how the thing is dang near impossible to see at more than 20'.
    So, if you cant even see or hear the Bugbot when it is 50' above your property, just how can the landowner say (per Causby) his use/enjoyment of his land is being imposed upon?

    Sure we KNOW there are satellites looking at us from above, we know there are planes looking down at us, and we know even helicopters are looking at us from above... so why would it be any different for Bugbots looking down on us (from 50' rather than the satellites up in the orbitsphere). You know OF satellites looking at folks, but you cant tell if one is looking at you right now, just as you dont know if there is a Bugbot doing it or not.

    So thats the deal with Causby,
    folks cannot say at the same time that they are so obtrusive that property cant be enjoyed
    while claiming they are so unnoticeable that folks cant tell if they are being spied on.
    One of the parts of enjoying/use of land is privacy. This aspect is as important as any. That the government or other entities are already peeping in your windows does not make it any more of an excuse. Suppose a gang of men atttack you, does it make it legitimate right for another to join the party because you are already being beaten?Nope.

    K-Bob. The K is silent. \"The only time you can have too much fuel is if you are on fire\"

  17. #17
    Sport_Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Acworth, GA
    Posts
    13,314
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    One of the parts of enjoying/use of land is privacy. This aspect is as important as any. That the government or other entities are already peeping in your windows does not make it any more of an excuse. Suppose a gang of men atttack you, does it make it legitimate right for another to join the party because you are already being beaten?Nope.


    I think we are alright with the bug size drones. The SCOTUS has already ruled that thegovernment must get warrants for "bugs". And they are that in two or three ways!
    Glow Head Brotherhood #15

  18. #18
    KidEpoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,681
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    I thought I was pretty clear
    pointing out how my post was about the Causby situation that someone brought up in this thread.

    Thank you Kbob for helping me shoot down their Causby concerns by pointing out
    its NOT about the stuff Causby was about,
    but that it is about PRIVACY from being spied on invading ones privacy




    ... in particular, its about being spied on by things that are TOO UNOBTRUSIVE to know you are being spied on
    (which, as my post points out, means they must be Too Unobtrusive to be considered for Causby land protections)

    Every time some privacy nut says drones are too small and quiet that they spy and catch folks unawares,
    the AMA should run up and say "Yeah, they are small and quiet, have been for decades"


    No Kbob
    just because legal things that you disagree with are happening,
    doesnt mean that a SLIGHT variation on them legal things needs to have JUST that slight variation banned.
    If you want to stop the govenrnment from spying on you,
    then ban it from BEYOND 50' as well as from within 50'.
    If you dont want government satellites and helicopters and small drones spying on you cause it violates your privacy,
    then try to get Government Aerial Spying stopped, and then there will be no small drone Government Aerial Spying because ther will be no GAS of any kind. But to cherry pick out just one variant of GAS to say is 'bad' while just allowing the other GAS is ... well thats dumb to do. Ban it all or allow it all, but its idiocy to ban just the GAS done by yellow craft, or just the GAS done from above 200' but below 1000', or just the GAS where the operator is not INSIDE the government aircraft spying on you

    Kbob, if there is a large satellite up in the orbitsphere spying on you,
    but you cant see or hear it,
    is that a violation of Causby?
    If there is same time also a lil drone spying on you, up where you cant see or hear it either,
    how is that different?

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Granger, IN
    Posts
    1,157
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    Now when we get down to 100', we gotta ask just how the landowner would even know it was there
    seeing how the thing is dang near impossible to see at more than 20'.
    So, if you cant even see or hear the Bugbot when it is 50' above your property, just how can the landowner say (per Causby) his use/enjoyment of his land is being imposed upon?
    Interference with the enjoyment of property is a legal concept, which like many other legal concepts does not mean what a lay person might think it means. The fact that a landowner is unaware of an intrusion does not mean that the intrusion can't be an interference with enjoyment of the land (in other words, a trespass). Suppose, for instance, that you tiptoe across someone's back yard late at night, or while the owner is on vacation. Is that a trespass? Of course. Does the owner's lack of awareness of the activity mean it isn't a trespass? No. This would be equally true if you drilled a well at an angle so that it passed under someone else's land. That's clearly a trespass, even if the owner was not aware of it.

    To sum up a whole body of law in a reasonably accurate way, you trespass on someone's real property if you cross (or cause something to cross) an invisible line (which lawyers call "the close") around the border of the property. It doesn't mater how high or how far down you do this, subject to the exception for ordinary aviation activities. It was plain that that exception had to be created, lest landowners be able to sue airlines for trespass every time a plane flew over. The question of how much that kind of activity interferes with an owner's use of the property arose in connection with determining the scope of that exception. It was clear that flying 10,000 feet overhead shouldn't be a trespass and flying five feet up should be, so the issue was where to draw the line in creating that exception. Causby did not, however, rewrite the whole common law of trespass to require that trespasses have to bother the owner, or even be something the owner was aware of. Indeed, it couldn't have done that, because the law of trespass is state law, and the Supreme Court doesn't get to make (or remake) state laws. It is therefore absurd to argue that activities aren't trespasses just because the owner of the property is unaware of them. Now, it will eventually turn out that unmanned aircraft will become so routine that an exception for their crossing someone's borders will have to be created. I don't know how broad or how narrow that exception will be, though I very much doubt that it will be broad enough to include ordinary model airplanes. Nobody else knows either, and anyone insisting that he does is a fool.
    Al Gunn
    Ultra Sport Brotherhood No. 9

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Anytown
    Posts
    1,282
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.


    ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

    I thought I was pretty clear
    pointing out how my post was about the Causby situation that someone brought up in this thread.

    Thank you Kbob for helping me shoot down their Causby concerns by pointing out
    its NOT about the stuff Causby was about,
    but that it is about PRIVACY from being spied on invading ones privacy




    ... in particular, its about being spied on by things that are TOO UNOBTRUSIVE to know you are being spied on
    (which, as my post points out, means they must be Too Unobtrusive to be considered for Causby land protections)

    Every time some privacy nut says drones are too small and quiet that they spy and catch folks unawares,
    the AMA should run up and say "Yeah, they are small and quiet, have been for decades"


    No Kbob
    just because legal things that you disagree with are happening,
    doesnt mean that a SLIGHT variation on them legal things needs to have JUST that slight variation banned.
    If you want to stop the govenrnment from spying on you,
    then ban it from BEYOND 50' as well as from within 50'.
    If you dont want government satellites and helicopters and small drones spying on you cause it violates your privacy,
    then try to get Government Aerial Spying stopped, and then there will be no small drone Government Aerial Spying because ther will be no GAS of any kind. But to cherry pick out just one variant of GAS to say is 'bad' while just allowing the other GAS is ... well thats dumb to do. Ban it all or allow it all, but its idiocy to ban just the GAS done by yellow craft, or just the GAS done from above 200' but below 1000', or just the GAS where the operator is not INSIDE the government aircraft spying on you

    Kbob, if there is a large satellite up in the orbitsphere spying on you,
    but you cant see or hear it,
    is that a violation of Causby?
    If there is same time also a lil drone spying on you, up where you cant see or hear it either,
    how is that different?
    I did not, nor would I, cite any specific "law" or regulation. I oppose spying on private citizens on their private land for any reason that would not hold up to the scrutiny of a judge and the requirments of a search warrant. Real simple dude, I do not trust government, even the good ole US govenment. Especially the US government.

    K-Bob. The K is silent. \"The only time you can have too much fuel is if you are on fire\"

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    4,059
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    I made a trip to Alaska. The only mosquito I saw was a fairly large one who flew around in a non whining, non threatening manner and landed on my thumbnail. I took a picture and it flew off. I'm going to have to check out that picture, as I now suspect it was microdrone.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Anytown
    Posts
    1,282
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.


    ORIGINAL: Jim Thomerson

    I made a trip to Alaska. The only mosquito I saw was a fairly large one who flew around in a non whining, non threatening manner and landed on my thumbnail. I took a picture and it flew off. I'm going to have to check out that picture, as I now suspect it was microdrone.

    From the mosquito:
    Landed on Jim's thumb. I took a picture and flew off.

    K-Bob. The K is silent. \"The only time you can have too much fuel is if you are on fire\"

  23. #23
    cfircav8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hampton, IA
    Posts
    1,186
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    As far as privacy goes, if I am in the street watching a woman change in front of her picture window then I am not spying as she has no reasonable expectation of privacy. If I have to peek inbetween drawn curtains then I am breaking the law. The same is true of the government, unless they get a warrant. If your yard is open enough to allow for an easy view from the air then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, including from the government, whether it is satelite, drone or helicopter. Those 30k+ drones are going to be communication companies (cell phone stations for the most part), with some for local law enforcement (chasing perps) and even less for agencys such as the forest service (finding lost hikers.) Agencies that are using them illegally are already doing so and the passing of this regulation will not change that, but will allow for the beneficial uses I mentioned. If you still feel this is only about spying on U.S. citizens then get your aluminum foil hat on and get off the grid, because if your important enough to be spied on they are already doing it.

    This is not directed at you Bob, and I also loath the thought of illeagally spying on our citizens, but also think its rediculous to automatically assume the worst when there are great benefits to be had.
    The three most useless things to a pilot, the sky above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel on the ground.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    central Lake, MI
    Posts
    374
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    Warrant? What warrant. We don't need no steenkin' warrant! The (Un) Patriot Act provides for the use of unwarranted "sneak and peak" into our private affects.
    Once a government starts down the road to tyranny, there is no turning back. We cannot depend on a corrupt, lawless Supreme Court to protect our inalienable rights any longer. They, along with congress and the White House have sold us all out for a few pieces of silver.
    If anyone here seriously believes this is all being done to protect us from terrorists then you need to turn off the television and start thinking for yourself instead of letting some bloviated blowhard such as Rush Limpballs or Shrill O'Lielly tell you it's for our protection.
    America no longer exists as we knew it. All the mechanisms are in place for this nation to become a police state. The only ones ho will enjoy such protection will be the parasitic bankers, Wall St and the elite who now run the government.
    Obomber s just declared himself first dictator of America.
    The communists now occupy the White House.
    This is only the beginning of the end for America. Your children will grow up as slaves to the banking elite and one world government.
    We are concerned about our right to enjoy this great hobby, but just wait a few more years and see what develops. It won't matter one damn how much the AMA lobbies congress, when the time comes radio controlled model planes will be outlawed just as they were in the old Soviet Union, and don't even think this won't happen..just consider what congress and the White House has passed and signed into law these past few years....just consider what I said earlier about governments starting down the path of tyranny.
    The only way for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.
    " Government is not eloquent, it is not reason; it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and fearful enemy." George Washington.
    Judge Andrew Napolitano recently stated " anyone who shoots down a drone is a patriot". I couldn't agree more.

  25. #25
    KidEpoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    6,681
    Gallery
    My Gallery
    Models
    My Models
    Ratings
    My Feedback

    RE: This should help bill requiring warrant for drones.

    We all know the FARs on Minimum Alt, especially the partC 'sparse' bit about 'distance from' rather than 'Alt Above'.
    With that in mind, peruse the following-

    articles.philly.com/1990-08-30/news/25930815_1_trial-on-drug-charges-helicopter-state-police
    Helicopter Search Ruled Hazard;
    Man Wins Drug Case Retrial

    August 30, 1990|By Charles Pukanecz, Special to The Inquirer


    An Upper Bucks County man has been granted a new trial on drug charges after a state Supreme Court ruling that a state police helicopter was flying dangerously close to the ground when it spotted marijuana through the transparent roof of his barn.

    The ruling, filed last Thursday, may limit the way state law enforcement officials use helicopters in drug searches. The court did not find that the search violated the man's privacy, as defense attorneys had argued, but agreed that the search presented a hazard to those on the ground because the helicopter had flown too low.
    Privacy? what privacy, aint no expectation of privacy from regular air traffic (aka within FARs and not violating min alt FAR distance in part c). The court saw a problem with the closness of the heli to the barn, not that they cant look inside when at Minimum FAR Alts


    another article on it-
    http://articles.mcall.com/1990-08-31...rijuana-plants
    New Trial For `Pot' Farmer
    State's Top Court Rules Police Tactics Dangerous

    August 31, 1990|by MARY GAGNIER, The Morning Call

    The state Supreme Court has granted an Upper Bucks man a new trial after ruling that a state police helicopter, hovering 50 feet above a barn designed for marijuana cultivation, endangered the man's wife and their property.


    one more
    http://articles.mcall.com/1990-08-31...rijuana-plants
    As a case on point, in Commonwealth v. Oglialoro, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reasoned that by using a transparent or translucent roof on a pole barn located within the curtilage of the defendant's house, the defendant "knowingly exposed his [marijuana plants] to persons lawfully operating aircraft over his property who might decide to take a look." 525 Pa. 250, 579 A.2d 1288, 1292 (Pa. 1990). The court thus rejected the suggestion that any expectation of privacy attached in such situations. Id. However, the court held that the police-surveillance flight, which involved a helicopter hovering fifty feet above the barn for fifteen seconds, had violated FAA regulations and thus the Fourth Amendment because it "represented a hazard to persons and property on the ground."


    wow, no mention of Property Air Rights as to enjoyment/use of property (Causby),
    just that the heli was below FAR min Alt (distance) and uh.. danger or threat??


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:47 PM.

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.