|
Mo_Steel posted:Would this apply if he put a camera up on top of a pole? Because firing a shotgun at someone elses property with the capacity to accidentally injure other people or destroy other property as a result is the sort of thing that I think ought to only be allowed in situations of immediate harm. If it on top of a pole, it's probably within range of chucking rocks at it or something. Not so much with drone height. Dude should get a fine/probation for discharging a weapon in public as that is generally a poor idea. Serious jail time, nah
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Would this apply if he put a camera up on top of a pole? Because firing a shotgun at someone elses property with the capacity to accidentally injure other people or destroy other property as a result is the sort of thing that I think ought to only be allowed in situations of immediate harm. A pole could be taken down, and the person installing it can be potentially identified.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you also think that taking pictures onto someone else's property from a nearby height is a problem? like, if you are up on a hillside and take a picture down at a house below you should that be a civil violation? Well yeah but the point was that trespassing onto private property to get video should be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:A pole could be taken down, and the person installing it can be potentially identified. DOOP posted:If it on top of a pole, it's probably within range of chucking rocks at it or something. Not so much with drone height. So is that a "no, it would not be okay to shoot at someone elses property on a pole" ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Well yeah but the point was that trespassing onto private property to get video should be illegal. Okay, and in some places it is. I generally agree. I don't understand what you mean by 'well yeah', though, do you think that climbing a hillside and taking a picture of someone else's property should be illegal? What about just standing on the ground and taking a picture of someone else's property? Modus Pwnens posted:A pole could be taken down, and the person installing it can be potentially identified. The person who owns the drone can be potentially identified, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Up to twenty years in federal prison for shooting down a toy helicopter and people are going "Well that's the law so we should be okay with it". Embarrassing. Yeah man, turns out amazing technological advances which have a deep capability for good also have some downsides and that it takes some time for society to figure out how to appropriately regulate the new technology. I'm sure a decade from now the laws will be the exact same as they are now and we're all going to feel really ashamed when we remember your post. Boon fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, and in some places it is. I generally agree. Oh that was me agreeing with you, taking photos of private property from public ground should be legal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Oh that was me agreeing with you, taking photos of private property from public ground should be legal. Ah sorry, I asked if it should be illegal, so when you said 'yeah', I thought you were saying it should be illegal. I think flying a drone over someone's property should be a civil violation even if you're not doing it to take pictures, unless it's the only way to get where you're going, which it almost never would be. To put it another way, there really isn't any legitimate purpose for flying a drone over private property that I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Boon posted:Yeah man, turns out amazing technological advances which have a deep capability for good also have some downsides and that it takes some time for society to figure out how to appropriately regulate the new technology. I'm sure a decade from now the laws will be the exact same as they are now and we're all going to feel really ashamed when we remember your post. ~DiSrUpTiOn~ by just breaking all the laws until we write new ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The person who owns the drone can be potentially identified, too. Good luck with that. (One of the fires for which a bounty was issued was over a month ago. And they still don't know who it was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you also think that taking pictures onto someone else's property from a nearby height is a problem? like, if you are up on a hillside and take a picture down at a house below you should that be a civil violation? I'm mostly thinking about potential responses, and if someone is on a hill taking pictures of your house and family over an extended time, and you see him, you can report suspicious behavior to the cops or go tell him to knock it off yourself. If you have nosy neighbors and you care you can put up a fence. Even in these examples these are people not on your property, so legally these are different issues. In the case of an airborne drone, I doubt you'd be able to get a clear enough picture of it to be of any use tracking it. Are police even equipped to respond to it anyway? It seems like that technology must not really be there if firefighters are helpless against them in times of emergency. Even if your average police department can track it down eventually, should a person be expected to tolerate it in the meantime? I'm not saying the guy was right to shoot it down, or that he shouldn't face punishment. If nothing else, his actions seem reckless to me. But if a drone is on your property, is there a legal and reliable way of removing it? Mo_Steel posted:So is that a "no, it would not be okay to shoot at someone elses property on a pole" ? Sure. We're talking about drones though, so if you have a point go ahead and make it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Is this a joke post, or did you not take 3 seconds to check Google for birdshot ranges first? Because I'm seeing anywhere from 100-250 yards depending on type, and 250 feet is sub-90 yards. In the 3 seconds of googling it took you to become an expert, did you consider that the effective range would be less if someone is shooting at a very high angle (almost straight up)? You don't typically shoot at clay pigeons that are right above you. I will concede that the birdshot wouldn't need much energy to damage a drone enough to make it crash. E: also lol at 250 yards for birdshot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
The problem with private property airspace is that it opens up so many issues. If we thought mineral, water, and gas rights were a pain, we couldn't imagine the negotiations regarding airspace access rights. If individuals start filing trespass notices for drones, could they do the same for helicopters or aircraft? Does that mean folks in flyover country can start airlines for the privilege of flying over their private property since someone could take photos of it from an airplane?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:I'm mostly thinking about potential responses, and if someone is on a hill taking pictures of your house and family over an extended time, and you see him, you can report suspicious behavior to the cops or go tell him to knock it off yourself. If you have nosy neighbors and you care you can put up a fence. Even in these examples these are people not on your property, so legally these are different issues. In the case of an airborne drone, I doubt you'd be able to get a clear enough picture of it to be of any use tracking it. Are police even equipped to respond to it anyway? It seems like that technology must not really be there if firefighters are helpless against them in times of emergency. Even if your average police department can track it down eventually, should a person be expected to tolerate it in the meantime? 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". A fence is not going to stop someone who really wants to take a picture onto your yard from doing it--a camera on a pole would work. I really don't get the libertarian urge of "Well if no law exists to cope with this I must immediately take the law into my own hands!" it's a drone taking pictures, it's not doing strafing runs or dropping anthrax. quote:I'm not saying the guy was right to shoot it down, or that he shouldn't face punishment. If nothing else, his actions seem reckless to me. But if a drone is on your property, is there a legal and reliable way of removing it? No. I mean, isn't this obvious? What way could you think of?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
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". To play devil's advocate, in many states one can shoot someone trespassing in their backyard, why should we hold drones to a haunted higher standard than people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Modus Pwnens posted:I'm mostly thinking about potential responses, and if someone is on a hill taking pictures of your house and family over an extended time, and you see him, you can report suspicious behavior to the cops or go tell him to knock it off yourself. If you have nosy neighbors and you care you can put up a fence. Even in these examples these are people not on your property, so legally these are different issues. You don't own the airspace above your property, so the drone is in the same legal position as the guy on the hill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
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. Actually, FIFA's biggest problem was having one of their board members (or presidents or whatever they're called) get the IRS's attention by buying a penthouse in New York for his cats to live in and then simply not paying taxes on it for years. The Qatar bullshit is only the cherry on top of the frothing, corrupt mess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:To play devil's advocate, in many states one can shoot someone trespassing in their backyard, why should we hold drones to a haunted higher standard than people? No, you can't shoot people for simple trespassing in your backyard in any state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I really don't get the libertarian urge of "Well if no law exists to cope with this I must immediately take the law into my own hands!" it's a drone taking pictures, it's not doing strafing runs or dropping anthrax. I reckon you're being the libertarian here. Someone sent a flying video camera to ogle the guy's teenage daughter sunbathing in his backyard, and the gross violation of rights you're worried about is the loss of an $1800 toy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:To play devil's advocate, in many states one can shoot someone trespassing in their backyard, why should we hold drones to a haunted higher standard than people? I have an AA gun on my back porch for just this reason. You don't get to trespass on my property Delta!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Drones don't take pictures, people do. Edit: my opinion on it is that the guy was in the right for this. It's just a high tech peeping Tom at this point. My Face When fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:I reckon you're being the libertarian here. Someone sent a flying video camera to ogle the guy's teenage daughter sunbathing in his backyard, and the gross violation of rights you're worried about is the loss of an $1800 toy. I'm more worried about the negligent discharge of a firearm and the drone crashing down and potentially injuring someone. Again, taking pictures of people's backyards isn't illegal. How am I being libertarian? What is the least bit libertarian about what I'm saying? Do you want to make it illegal to take pictures of someone's backyard from a hill--even assuming that he did send the drone to ogle, which is something that's asserted but not at all proved?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm more worried about the negligent discharge of a firearm and the drone crashing down and potentially injuring someone. That's pretty much how I feel. The drone operator was likely being an rear end but shooting it down isn't the best solution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, you can't shoot people for simple trespassing in your backyard in any state. Sorry I also have to be afraid, a rather low bar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Up to twenty years in federal prison for shooting down a toy helicopter and people are going "Well that's the law so we should be okay with it". Embarrassing. When is drone alarm-ism going to end? because at this point it's reaching "and trains will scare all the women to death and make us all lazy" levels of stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sorry I also have to be afraid, a rather low bar. It's really effectively a lot more than that. If you can find a case of someone shooting someone who was committing a simple trespass while unarmed and not attempting to get into the house or another building (edit: And not being prosecuted), then that'll make me reconsider. Modus Pwnens posted:We don't consider them big deals because when we can identify and reach the source we have the agency of a range of responses beyond simply shooting them. You can call police and expect them to be capable of dealing with it in a timely manner. 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. quote:You can ask the guy with the camera to stop, either politely or with a threat. No, you can't. It would be illegal to threaten them. You don't actually think it'd be okay to do that, do you? quote:You can tell the neighborhood about the creepy neighbor taking pictures of your daughter with his camera on a stick and bring social pressure against him, and so on. If you shot at any camera that aims near your house, or even the camera on a pole in your yard or whatever, you're clearly at fault (and a lunatic) because there are far less reckless options available rather than jumping to such an extreme. I find this man's actions more understandable if he had no other such options available. The question isn't about how understandable his actions are, though, right? It's understandable to me if people fire rock salt at halloweeners egging their house. it's still stupid. We live in a society of laws. When a law hasn't perfectly accommodate new technology, the solution isn't to start shooting. There may be no solution. That's life. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
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". We don't consider them big deals because when we can identify and reach the source we have the agency of a range of responses beyond simply shooting them. You can call police and expect them to be capable of dealing with it in a timely manner. You can ask the guy with the camera to stop, either politely or with a threat. You can remove someone from your property, or have them removed, without having to shoot them at range. You can tell the neighborhood about the creepy neighbor taking pictures of your daughter with his camera on a stick and bring social pressure against him, and so on. If you shot at any camera that aims near your house, or even the camera on a pole in your yard or whatever, you're clearly at fault (and a lunatic) because there are far less reckless options available rather than jumping to such an extreme. I find this man's actions more understandable if he had no other such options available.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Depending on the altitude of the drone, the guy probably had the right to take it down over his property. Note that he wasn't arrested for that though, he was arrested for firing a gun into the air in a populated area. That part is plainly illegal, as it well should be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Clearly the solution is to combine the ideas presented here.. Some sort of extremely long telescoping pole with a camera on it for guidance, used to bat the offending drone out of the air without needing to waste precious ammunition... 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Depending on the altitude of the drone, the guy probably had the right to take it down over his property. Note that he wasn't arrested for that though, he was arrested for firing a gun into the air in a populated area. That part is plainly illegal, as it well should be. quote:A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the first degree when, having no right to do so or any reasonable ground to believe that he has such right, he intentionally or wantonly defaces, destroys or damages any property causing pecuniary loss of $1,000 or more. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19790
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
El Disco posted:In the 3 seconds of googling it took you to become an expert, did you consider that the effective range would be less if someone is shooting at a very high angle (almost straight up)? You don't typically shoot at clay pigeons that are right above you. e: Changed my mind, a fair enough point. I just felt your first post was dismissive out of hand with no real justification. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
El Disco posted:In the 3 seconds of googling it took you to become an expert, did you consider that the effective range would be less if someone is shooting at a very high angle (almost straight up)? You don't typically shoot at clay pigeons that are right above you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:Yea, the real story here is how effective the shotgun guy ending up being. If that thing stayed consistently above 250+ feet and was even slightly moving around it would be difficult to hit with bird shot. Do we know how many shots he fired? According to the news report, three. Venom Snake posted:When is drone alarm-ism going to end? because at this point it's reaching "and trains will scare all the women to death and make us all lazy" levels of stupid. How is it alarmism to predict that A. They will become ubiquitous and B. Corporations will use them as an advertisement vehicle?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Brannock posted:How is it alarmism to predict that A. They will become ubiquitous and B. Corporations will use them as an advertisement vehicle? They are kind of poo poo at holding a sign while dressed as a statue of liberty and spinning it right now, so B seems a ways off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Barudak posted:They are kind of poo poo at holding a sign while dressed as a statue of liberty and spinning it right now, so B seems a ways off. ‟DroneCast was started with a simple idea in mind: billboards, bus stations, and radio advertisements have become boring," DroneCast's Damien Kahmer explained. "People have become blind to this form of advertising, as it’s non-engaging and uninteresting. The question was, how can we fix this?”
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, and in some places it is. I generally agree. 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. What redresses do you have? It's not touching your property. Since I am an rear end in a top hat, I am refusing to move it when asked politely. In fact, I'm out of state and managing it remotely, and the land it is on is owned by a shell corporation so you don't know who to go to to ask politely. Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
USPol thread off to a great start
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Up to twenty years in federal prison for shooting down a toy helicopter and people are going "Well that's the law so we should be okay with it". Embarrassing. Out of morbid curiosity, is that more or less time than simply shooting the operator? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Out of morbid curiosity, is that more or less time than simply shooting the operator? depends on the color of the drone and the operator
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
FCKGW posted:USPol thread off to a great start It's gonna be a great month. ComradeCosmobot posted:‟DroneCast was started with a simple idea in mind: billboards, bus stations, and radio advertisements have become boring," DroneCast's Damien Kahmer explained. "People have become blind to this form of advertising, as it’s non-engaging and uninteresting. The question was, how can we fix this?”  Do they even bother with ethics in whatever the hell courses are required for a degree in marketing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 19:08
|
|
