Sport_Pilot

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.

Hossfly

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.

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) 

CashD

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


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

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

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.

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

Spoken like a good citizen/sheep.

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

cj_rumley

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.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

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.

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.

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

+1

Sport_Pilot

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

Tjettzky

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...

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.

cj_rumley

Or ornithopter? Interesting, Sport. Kinda illustrates there is a limit on what we individually can imagine for the future of the tech.

CJ

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.

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

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.

Sport_Pilot

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!

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?

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

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.

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

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.

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.

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

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

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

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.

jollyroger

My Feedback: (6)

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.

KidEpoxy

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
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


one more
http://articles.mcall.com/1990-08-31...rijuana-plants


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??