|
Klaus88 posted:It's gonna be a great month. Ethics?!? In my ad firm?
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
One of the great problems of our legal system is the insistence on stretching analogies way too far, even when patently ridiculous and without regard for bad policy outcomes. It's how we get nonsense like our wiretapping laws. Drones surveilling your neighbors anonymously is bad, and we ought to create a practical recourse, either through public policy or allowing people to act on their own (rf jammers, lasers, bird shot since it won't likely hurt anyone falling down, whatever). Hills and cranes and hot air balloons are related questions but it's dumb to reduce all situations to existing precedents even when it's suboptimal. That's a fine line of argument for what the law is, not what it should be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:
It's more of a reverse ethics course, honestly: How far can we stretch the definition of "legal" without facing jail time or embarrassment? What's the average cost of an out of course settlement vs. a recall? How can we make the people saying we're the bad guys look like lunatics and unpatriotic communists?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
"It's the legal department's problem anyways. We're just trying to get the customer interested in our products." 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:
“Truthfully, I’ll see what happens, but I’m not worried because we as a country are progressing at such a great rate with technology and innovation and why should the government…be the ones to stop us from doing this,” [GauravJit Singh, CEO of DroneCast] said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:The Olympics has literally never generated revenue for the host city, and quite often has put them into significant amounts of debt and/or displaced a lot of businesses and people. They're a loving disaster unless you're competing or watching them on television. I feel bad for people training for the next Olympics because the location is basically a giant bio hazard. Antti posted:Or in on the racket, be it via the organizing committee, the host city political class or the construction business. As a bonus you get to demolish some projects/slums and pave them over or turn them into luxury condos. Everyone knew about the corruption with Russia and China but nobody's going to boycott the games over it, sadly. Luigi Thirty posted:Some idiot nearly crashed their drone into a jet at JFK yesterday so I hope someone figures out something to do with them. Felony charges for the drone operator is a good start. Defenestration posted:I super doubt that it will be any different than last time. See: Rio's waterways a year out being described as "raw sewage." They'll sweep it all under the bed for the IOC inspectors. As long as their TV show goes off well, the IOC couldn't care less about civic goals and whether they're met. Rio's water being raw sewage can't be swept under the rug however the IOC is just as open to bribes as FIFA so it won't matter. Rio will be a giant toilet and people will have to compete in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
The piece of poo poo Texas AG is being indicted Monday.quote:A grand jury has indicted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on multiple felony charges, according to several sources who are familiar with the complaints. http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/texas-news/2015/08/01/attorney-general-ken-paxton-to-be-indicted-monday/30989247/ This goes here, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:“Truthfully, I’ll see what happens, but I’m not worried because we as a country are progressing at such a great rate with technology and innovation and why should the government…be the ones to stop us from doing this,” [GauravJit Singh, CEO of DroneCast] said. Marketers aren't human.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Okay, let's simplify. I have a camera on a crane boom, and I move it over to look inside your house. I have nightvision and thermal vision, so curtains will not help. Looking inside your house is different, that's invasion of privacy and covered by laws already. berzerker posted:One of the great problems of our legal system is the insistence on stretching analogies way too far, even when patently ridiculous and without regard for bad policy outcomes. It's how we get nonsense like our wiretapping laws. Nobody is arguing that it's just fine to anonymously surveil your neighbors, but there are a lot of ways to do it that are completely legal. And no, knocking stuff out of the sky and letting it fall uncontrolled to the ground is never going to be a viable solution. ComradeCosmobot posted:“Truthfully, I’ll see what happens, but I’m not worried because we as a country are progressing at such a great rate with technology and innovation and why should the government…be the ones to stop us from doing this,” [GauravJit Singh, CEO of DroneCast] said. The new breed of "oh god it's so unfair to regulate us" silicon valley startups are really loving annoying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Everyone knew about the corruption with Russia and China but nobody's going to boycott the games over it, sadly. Yeah, it's more of a case of everyone already knowing they're corrupt but they're too big to effectively boycott. Qatar doesn't have that advantage and that's why people have been able to raise hell over it. There's also some plausible deniability in that Russia and China are major powers that can certainly hold an Olympics and it's not outrageous for them to, but Qatar holding a World Cup is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Well, it's not like advertisers pay much attention to the existing laws regarding advertising anyways, so drones buzzing in people's faces is the next logical step.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:“Truthfully, I’ll see what happens, but I’m not worried because we as a country are progressing at such a great rate with technology and innovation and why should the government…be the ones to stop us from doing this,” [GauravJit Singh, CEO of DroneCast] said. Absolutely disgusting. And yet I don't blame them for taking this view. Software developers got a lot of leeway perverting previous concepts of law. Now it's time for hi-tech gadgets to finish the job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Looks like Biden might actually be running... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/u...WT.nav=top-news
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I feel bad for people training for the next Olympics because the location is basically a giant bio hazard. This is how modern Olympics blow out their budgets - promise the IOC the world to win the bid, then the naked cash grab puts everything behind schedule and wouldn't you know, they have to hire everyone and their brother at double the rate because the work needs to get done ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, the person should be expected to tolerate it in the meantime, since the alternative is shooting it down, which is reckless and dangerous and destroys the property. The reason why I brought up the people not on the property is to show that people already have legal ways of taking pictures onto private property and we don't consider that a big deal. You can't go up to someone shooting onto your property and ask them to knock it off--or, you can, but they can say "gently caress off". idk, it's probably tortious to take actions that a reasonable person wouldn't do to take pictures of someone else's house as an invasion of privacy
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The guy released the flight data log for the drone. It was at 250 feet altitude the whole time, neighbor is likely not only a lying sack of poo poo, but opened fire at a legally flying craft at legal altitude. Wait a second. He shot down a drone operating at 250 feet with birdshot? Bull. poo poo. Birdshot gets you about 150 feet maximum on a good day great conditions, and with enough force to destroy a drone? Forget about it. So either he actually used his .22 or the more obvious answer: the drone operator faked his flight records. Fortunately this is Kentucky where a judge will know just what birdshot can and cannot do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:if you call the cops and tell them that someone is taking pictures of your property from a hill, they will say "That's legal". If you call them and tell them someone is trespassing on your property, you will probably not get a timely response. And that all depends on you noticing it, which is unlikely anyway. If someone wanted to covertly take pictures of your backyard, the technology has existed for decades to make that trivial. It depends on what they are taking photos of and how they are taking them. Just landscape shots or generally happening to include someone else's property in the background aren't going to cause a problem but if you are at a spot where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and they are using a telephoto lens it could be actionable as an unreasonable intrusion on seclusion. This definitely applies to drones but it doesn't need to be photography - binoculars are good enough. Klaus88 posted:
Yeah they do. If you pass you get kicked out of the program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Slightly on topic: Cecil the lion's brother was shot by a poacher today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Slightly on topic: Cecil the lion's brother was shot by a poacher today. I'll absolve all the poachers of their crimes if they can poach Robert Mugabe's wrinkled worthless rear end. I'll even let them keep the head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
What about a drone registry? It seems part off the problem is the anonymity that makes it hard for legal recourse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Looking inside your house is different, that's invasion of privacy and covered by laws already. Unless it's a camera on a pole, and then it's okay and you are a libertarian if you have a problem with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:It depends on what they are taking photos of and how they are taking them. Just landscape shots or generally happening to include someone else's property in the background aren't going to cause a problem but if you are at a spot where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and they are using a telephoto lens it could be actionable as an unreasonable intrusion on seclusion. This definitely applies to drones but it doesn't need to be photography - binoculars are good enough. Most backyards aren't going to be a reasonable expectation of privacy, though, as long as you're standing in a public place. Only the California anti-paparazzi law would apply, and then only to, like you said, a zoom lens. I think that's a pretty good model law, though again for drones I'd rather just have a law saying you can't fly them over private property since I don't see any legitimate reason to do that. Mormon Star Wars posted:Unless it's a camera on a pole, and then it's okay and you are a libertarian if you have a problem with it. No, it's always a problem to take pictures through an open window. Fairly sure this obtains in all states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
It is somewhat hilarious to me that the American reaction to a very real problem is, once again, "shoot it until it dies".
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:“Truthfully, I’ll see what happens, but I’m not worried because we as a country are progressing at such a great rate with technology and innovation and why should the government…be the ones to stop us from doing this,” [GauravJit Singh, CEO of DroneCast] said. I can totally see this argument. Who is the government to tell private drone operators what they can and can't do? They have drones too. Who's drones have caused more damage to civilian areas historically? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Looking inside your house is different, that's invasion of privacy and covered by laws already. Isn't that kind of a grey area of "reasonable expectation of privacy"? There was a whole deal in NY a few years ago where an artist took pictures of people in their houses through their giant windows with a zoom lens and it basically came down to the fact that even though you think you might feel isolated and private in your house you have big rear end windows and you shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy even though you feel that you do, close your blind if you want to be private.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
botany posted:It is somewhat hilarious to me that the American reaction to a very real problem is, once again, "shoot it until it dies". If the drone had had a gun, this never would have happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Slightly on topic: Cecil the lion's brother was shot by a poacher today. Did he use a drone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Isn't that kind of a grey area of "reasonable expectation of privacy"? There was a whole deal in NY a few years ago where an artist took pictures of people in their houses through their giant windows with a zoom lens and it basically came down to the fact that even though you think you might feel isolated and private in your house you have big rear end windows and you shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy even though you feel that you do, close your blind if you want to be private. I'm not sure, I know that at least in some states it's very much not allowed. Where the line is is probably state-by-state. But setting something up to intentionally use a telescopic lens and night vision to take a picture of someone's bathroom through a little window I think would be pretty obvious violation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Air rights are already a thing, and have been for most of the last century. A property owner does, in fact, own the space above their property, and can do anything with it that they wish. If you want to build a 3000-foot tower in your backyard, you can do it, because you own the air, and aircraft have to go around or above it. The FAA has established right of passage for aircraft above private property, the rules for which are very specific: "FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119 posted:Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: So if a drone is an aircraft (and not a helicopter), and it was operating at 250 feet over this guy's house, it was already operating in violation of FAA airspace restrictions. fatman1683 fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
fatman1683 posted:Air rights are already a thing, and have been for most of the last century. They have slightly sifferent rules that cover model aircraft, which drones fall under.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
I can't wait for drones to somehow be covered by the second amendment. Ya'll are weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
El Disco posted:If the drone had had a gun, this never would have happened. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
I can see a huge outrage the first time someone designs a drone that's 3D printable with a gun built into it that fires a few rounds. It's not like a huge implausible situation there already are gun drones like not like "military" but actual drones that carry guns and shoot them. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/us/gun-drone-connecticut/
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:USPol thread off to a great start With Congress on vacation, we can't make fun of republicans and this is what happens Evil Fluffy posted:Olympics Too bad the U.S. Actually cares about the Olympics and sucking up to the IOC and there won't be a FIFA-esque investigation  Three Olives posted:The piece of poo poo Texas AG is being indicted Monday. Good old insider trading wins once again CommieGIR posted:Slightly on topic: Cecil the lion's brother was shot by a poacher today. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w1QoNOuAqPI
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I can see a huge outrage the first time someone designs a drone that's 3D printable with a gun built into it that fires a few rounds. Someone attached an actual pistol, fired off a few rounds on video, and got in trouble, but nothing further is known (if he was even booked). At least he wasn't doing it in his backyard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Someone attached an actual pistol, fired off a few rounds on video, and got in trouble, but nothing further is known (if he was even booked). At least he wasn't doing it in his backyard. Yeah it was the most basic thing as well. So yeah, once someone actually comes out with a design where you 3D print part of the drone, then you "self install" the other parts you'll most certainly see it occur. Also, I give it 2 years tops before someone uses a drone for murdering someone, like a civilian drone used to murder someone. edit: Oh it was a teenager that designed the drone and built it. Double Edit: Someone explain the big deal with drones btw, because to me it's just remote controlled fancy copter and we've had those for years. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They have slightly sifferent rules that cover model aircraft, which drones fall under. Actually, they don't have any rules at all, as such: "SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT posted:(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law Which is kind of the problem. Drone capabilities have advanced far beyond the original scope of the Special Rule, which means it's anyone's guess at this point exactly how the FAA is going to choose to regulate them. I think it's pretty clear that the ability to operate a drone from a long distance, out of line of sight, presents unique problems for the original idea of a model airplane. edit: why the gently caress does it keep adding a double quote to the end of the URL 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yeah it was the most basic thing as well. So yeah, once someone actually comes out with a design where you 3D print part of the drone, then you "self install" the other parts you'll most certainly see it occur. Given how long the bitcoiners and associated libertarian weirdos have been talking about it, I'm surprised one of those idiots hasn't tried it already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Given how long the bitcoiners and associated libertarian weirdos have been talking about it, I'm surprised one of those idiots hasn't tried it already. There's gonna be a massive outbreak of  when that happens after the inevitable legislative response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
Klaus88 posted:There's gonna be a massive outbreak of I'm glad of it. I'm tired of people thinking they can invent laws from thin air, and "common sense" because they're engineers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 21:16
|
|