|
Vitamin J posted:
Sup. Can you post your references? Larsen v Fort Wayne is applicable case law on this issue because it takes public viewing and "photography" not for the express idea of sending the images to others. First amendment gives no shits AFAIK about non-communicative photography. I would love to be shown wrong here. Edit: just to be clear: you are right in that: you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy from public places. But, that doesn't mean that the 1st amendment protects you from taking photos whatsoever, as the first amendment is about speech~~~~ coming from someone and going to another. Now if we want to start talking 4th amendment and helicopter investigations, let's take a gander at Florida v Riley. Captain Apollo fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jan 7, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
I swear to God the only group of people who whine more about their dick extending hobby than gun owners are drone owners
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
It's so cute that you think the fourth amendment is still a thing that matters. Pick up that can, citizen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:The first amendment protects anyone's right to take photographs from the air. You don't have any expectation of privacy to things visible from the air. No, not even your daughters sunbathing in your back yard behind a tall fence. Photographing young girls sunbathing in their own backyards is not covered by the First Amendment, you weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
rscott posted:I swear to God the only group of people who whine more about their dick extending hobby than gun owners are drone owners Ayup
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
rscott posted:I swear to God the only group of people who whine more about their dick extending hobby than gun owners are drone owners If I put a hellfire on a "hobbyist" drone will the NRA defend my rights to it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:If I put a hellfire on a "hobbyist" drone will the NRA defend my rights to it? God and the founding fathers granted you the right to fire freedom missiles from any platform you want, but the optical targeting system is banned due to privacy concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Ola posted:God and the founding fathers granted you the right to fire freedom missiles from any platform you want, but the optical targeting system is banned due to privacy concerns. But where do we stand on the radar homing version?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But where do we stand on the radar homing version? As long as the radar doesn't clearly image the genitals, it's fine
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Sup. Can you post your references? Larsen v Fort Wayne is applicable case law on this issue because it takes public viewing and "photography" not for the express idea of sending the images to others. First amendment gives no shits AFAIK about non-communicative photography. I would love to be shown wrong here. chitoryu12 posted:Photographing young girls sunbathing in their own backyards is not covered by the First Amendment, you weirdo. rscott posted:I swear to God the only group of people who whine more about their dick extending hobby than gun owners are drone owners
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Hahahah there are several states that make it a sex offender registry crime to film nude or partially disrobed persons if the person is in an area where they can reasonably expect privacy. Sunbathing in back yard may be up for debate but drones peeking through windows not so much. Claiming a right to fly a drone up to someone's window and peep them naked through the drapes is some twisted poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Sup. Sure thing. The first amendment is about a few things, actually. Speech is one of them. Another is religion. But what we're talking about is the freedom of the press. Basically as the supreme court has ruled, if a person has a right to be in a location, they have the right to take a photograph from that location. This means that since I can fly in an airplane over your house, I can take photos from that airplane while above your house. I can also use a drone to do the same as long as the drone goes where I can go and I don't use it in a way that would constitute trespassing if the picture were taken by hand. But at what height does the airspace above someone's backyard become a location where you aren't allowed to be in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
AWACS flight deck during aerial refueling. I handed my camera off to an evaluator for this picture. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Hahahah there are several states that make it a sex offender registry crime to film nude or partially disrobed persons if the person is in an area where they can reasonably expect privacy. Sunbathing in back yard may be up for debate but drones peeking through windows not so much. Saukkis posted:But at what height does the airspace above someone's backyard become a location where you aren't allowed to be in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
An Israeli company built a ducted fan flying car. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppKklhRtmTg Paul Moller must be so loving pissed off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Phy posted:Paul Moller must be so loving pissed off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:These laws all hinge on intent. If the intent is to violate someone's privacy that's different than capturing an image for other reasons that are protected. Often, yeah. But in saying a lot of creepy people have ill intent. And I'd still be sweating bullets if I were just tooling my drone around and happened to get videos of an underage person undressed even if it weren't my intent. You still shifted the goalposts. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Phy posted:An Israeli company built a ducted fan flying car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:The first amendment protects anyone's right to take photographs from the air. You don't have any expectation of privacy to things visible from the air. No, not even your daughters sunbathing in your back yard behind a tall fence. That's a real oversimplification. The issue hinges on expectation of privacy. You generally have no expectation of privacy if you're out in public. If you're walking down the sidewalk, anyone can take your picture. But if you're in a public bathroom, that's different, you walk into that stall and shut the door, you have an expectation of privacy and if someone were to stick a camera under the divider to grab a shot of your bollocks, 1st Amendment *doesn't* protect that. Similarly, 1st Amendment doesn't protect you sticking your iPhone on a selfie stick and using it to take upskirt shots of teens at your local mall. Similarly, if I'm walking around in public and I see something in plain view, I get to take photographs of it. If I'm on the sidewalk, and I can see you sunbathing in your back yard, I can take pictures of you, even though you're on private property, because you're in plain view. If it's night and you have this big picture window with the lights on inside and you parade nude in front of it, I can probably take photos of that from the sidewalk. But I probably can't set up a telephoto lens on the sidewalk and try to get pictures of you in your bedroom while you're adjusting your blinds, because you have a significant expectation of privacy in that case; peeping toms are not protected by the 1st Amendment. If you're sunbathing in your backyard and you put up a fence, now that possibly changes the issue. Now to take your photo I can't just stand on a public sidewalk, I have to climb up a tree or out onto my roof or up a ladder, and you have a greater expectation of privacy. Note that this is different than the government performing a search; the USSC has ruled that cops don't need a warrant to observe your property from the air, if they get into a helicopter and see your grow operation in your fenced-in back yard they can come arrest you. Invasion of privacy between citizens is a *tort*, and it hinges upon things like "reasonable" and "offensive," so standing on your roof and photographing your neighbor digging a trench for a sprinkler system in his fenced-in backyard might be okay, while standing on your roof to photograph your neighbor's wife sunbathing topless in that same fenced-in backyard might not be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Cars can warn you if a door is not properly closed, so I'm surprised airliners do not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IYeGiZJsNM
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Cars can warn you if a door is not properly closed, so I'm surprised airliners do not. They do. Reminder: A US Airways flight attempted to continue a takeoff last year while the aircraft was yelling "RETARD" at them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
A lot of peeping laws also require the element of secrecy on top of everything else. Hiding in a tree at night and taking photos of someone through their window is something you can be arrested for. It's a little more muddled if you are standing on your roof in broad daylight for everyone to see. Timing could matter too. If someone is sitting on the roof taking photos of birds at his neighbors feeder, the neighbor can't necessarily insist that the person stop because they want to sunbath topless next to it. You can also be arrested for indecent exposure within your own home. Again, it comes down to intent. If someone happens to see you naked through the window but you weren't intending on that happening, you are fine. But if you regularly gaze out the front picture window of your house, sipping coffee nude as everyone guys to the bus stop in the morning, that's indecent exposure. Also, these sorts of laws are local, so it's not likely anything that can be dealt with on a federal level. It's also a lot that can be dealt with by being a calm and normal human being and talking to someone ahead of time about it. "Hey, I want to get an aerial shot of the neighborhood for the community newsletter, do you mind?" None of this really changes much with drones either. People have been doing the same creepy poo poo forever, they just now have a very loud buzzing platform to do it from than a quiet tree. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Uhhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the First Amendment only allow free speech in that it protects citizens from persecution by the government if they speak out against it and not allow them to say and do whatever the gently caress they want to anyone?hobbesmaster posted:They do. Something something Sully something 1500 hours something something...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
http://www.popsci.com/airbus-wants-to-jam-drones-out-sky?src=SOC&dom=fbquote:The system offers very high effectiveness by combining sensor data from different sources with latest data fusion, signal analysis and jamming technologies. It uses operational radars, infrared cameras and direction finders from Airbus Defence and Space's portfolio to identify the drone and assess its threat potential at ranges between 3.1 and 6.2 miles (5 and 10 kilometers). 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Uhhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the First Amendment only allow free speech in that it protects citizens from persecution by the government if they speak out against it and not allow them to say and do whatever the gently caress they want to anyone? I'm correcting you because you're wrong. It prohibits the government from punishing or outlawing speech, outside of certain categories (defamation and obscenity are the two big ones). It means that any regulations affecting or restricting speech much pass the highest level of legal scrutiny (the regulation must serve a compelling government interest, and the regulation must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and the regulation must also be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest). In its various penumbrae, it bars things like special taxes on printing ink or paper, content-based discrimination when a public agency decides to accept money for ads on public property, "speech codes" at public universities, etc. It also protects acts that are essential to speech; there mere act of taking a photo might not be an expressive act per se, but since you don't get published photographs without someone first taking photos, laws barring photography of public spectacles would be unconstitutional. It's by no means restricted to "speaking out against the government."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
If only drone chat had its own thread.... Back to cool aeronautical poo poo.. https://vimeo.com/63627610 (can you imbed vimeo here?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Tide posted:If only drone chat had its own thread.... It should work if you change the type value to "vimeo" in the video BBcode https://vimeo.com/63627610
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I'm correcting you because you're wrong. It prohibits the government from punishing or outlawing speech, outside of certain categories (defamation and obscenity are the two big ones). It means that any regulations affecting or restricting speech much pass the highest level of legal scrutiny (the regulation must serve a compelling government interest, and the regulation must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and the regulation must also be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest). In its various penumbrae, it bars things like special taxes on printing ink or paper, content-based discrimination when a public agency decides to accept money for ads on public property, "speech codes" at public universities, etc. It also protects acts that are essential to speech; there mere act of taking a photo might not be an expressive act per se, but since you don't get published photographs without someone first taking photos, laws barring photography of public spectacles would be unconstitutional. See, I didn't know that...not being American I only have a cursory familiarity with your constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:But at what height does the airspace above someone's backyard become a location where you aren't allowed to be in? I've actually seen this cited as 62 feet agl. On my second flight in my own backyard, I went about 80 feet straight up and a few minutes later I heard a "pak pak" sound. About twenty minutes later my neighbor from two houses over came to my front door and we proceeded to have the most awkward conversation ever. He admitted to shooting a gun of some kind at the drone, to me it sounded like someone using nailgun in their garage. I had no idea it was being shot at and didn't know how to respond after he said he was gunning for it. I could use the flight log to prove it was a purely vertical flight, and I actually recorded it from start to finish (something I rarely do now) and could easily prove that the camera was pointed either straight down at my own property or to the west looking at the sun setting over the foothills. He never once said anything like "don't fly that over my property" or "don't fly that in the neighborhood," just wanted to let me know that he took some shots at it to which I replied, "Oh. Okay?" Definitely one of the most awkward conversations I've ever had. The only thing I can think is that he is one of the people really riled about UAS media coverage and was champing at the bit to shoot one down if he ever saw one. Any time I've flown around a house (mine or family's) it's always been impossible to see inside. The lenses are usually super wide-angle so it's even hard to make out people in their back yards unless you're flying extra close. And yeah, if you look out your window and see a drone hovering there, I wouldn't blame you for getting angry and shooting it down. Dead Reckoning posted:It should work if you change the type value to "vimeo" in the video BBcode Every time I visit the museum I will watch this video at least twice. loving beautiful. Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
It almost is a shame that these devices have VTOL capability. If they didn't, and required some sort of runway to use, we wouldn't be having any of these issues, I would assume. If you need a small patch of grass to get going, well then you'll take it to a park like all the other AMA/RC hobbyists do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:It almost is a shame that these devices have VTOL capability. This makes me wonder if it's just the coincidence of multicopter technology and tiny camera "gopro" tech reaching consumer levels at the same time. POV flight has been something r/c modelers have wanted forever and are rapidly adopting, I'm sure if DJI didn't exist someone would just be selling 3D helicopters with camera mounts... People also freaked the gently caress out over telephones with cameras in them when that became a thing. edit: loving... right?? Drone owners who have had their UAS shot down and sue the shooter seem to win more than 50% of the time, depending on how belligerent the shooter is and if there is proof of where the drone was. I didn't have a snappy response - I was too taken aback by him readily admitting to it to even say that's something he shouldnt be doing - but I would imagine shooting at a drone flying nearby would be kind of like taking shots at someone sitting in their car across the street from your house. The really obnoxious people are the ones going "I REGISTERED MY DONE WITH THE FAA SO SHOOTING AT IT IS LIKE SHOOTING DOWN A CESSNA AARGHBARGL" \/\/\/\/\/ Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Howdy neighbor, don't mind me, I'm just shooting over your head at that expensive toy you're flying on your own property. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Supreme court case law says something like a landowner owns as much airspace as they can reasonably use or need. They can install a large tower for instance. Also if air traffic interferes with their use of the land then they can have that traffic diverted. The case in question involved a farmer where a new airport was built close by and sometimes the planes would fly less than 80ft above his property, scaring his livestock and causing problems for his business and livelihood. The court ruled that the air traffic had to remain above 83ft above his property. Sounds like homeowners need to get drones so they can claim their airspace before the peeping toms invade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
How long before someone comes up with some sort of pseudo AA system with BB guns (or larger) to shoot down drones over their property? You'd really only need to do signal triangulation to determine approximate location and if its over your land.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
KingPave posted:How long before someone comes up with some sort of pseudo AA system with BB guns (or larger) to shoot down drones over their property? Phalanx with a firehose instead of a M61 would probably work pretty well too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
xergm posted:Howdy neighbor, don't mind me, I'm just shooting over your head at that expensive toy you're flying on your own property.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:In most urban places discharging a firearm will get you in a ridiculous amount of trouble. That's why we needed more falconers
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:- but I would imagine shooting at a drone flying nearby would be kind of like taking shots at someone sitting in their car across the street from your house. Taking drone rights to a whole new level ITT. Drones: worth as much as human life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Taking drone rights to a whole new level ITT. What I meant was taking shots at the car, though I can see why you thought I'd mean the person in it. I was just implying destruction/damage to property. To be crystal clear, shooting at a drone would be like shooting at a 1991 Saturn parked across the street from you, while the owner is 100 feet away from it looking at your house through binoculars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Midjack posted:Phalanx with a firehose instead of a M61 would probably work pretty well too. Or some highly modified Super soakers... Hope someone does it now, wanna see highly pressurised super soakers trying to shoot down drones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 01:23
|
|