Drones Over America

They just want these so they can use em to look for woman sunbathing naked in their backyard...

Hell yeah they do. This is going to torpedo the per-shot price of topless candid <insert starlet of the week> photos. The paparazzi is going to have to make up for that in volume.

Privacy issues aside, I can only view the spread of robotics as a positive.

It'll be interesting to see what this does to the technology. Presently, anyone can put together a drone for a few hundred bucks. There are several competing techs, too. It'll be interesting to see which techs win out and whether cheaper or better is the push as drones get more common. I'd wager on high-endurance fixed-wing models winning out over nimbler quad-copters. Regardless, it'll be fun to see.

But those quad-copters are so fucking cool. Every time I see one I want to jump up and down.

Police departments are already using them.

I've thought about creating one with a remote controlled helicopter for work. It would be very convenient.

Great. There goes my plans to start a giant cocaine grow operation in my back yard.

I want a guarantee that drones will specifically not be permitted for surveillance of people within the boundaries of their abode or property without a warrant, or in pursuit of a suspect, who has been continuously monitored leaving the scene of a crime. I'm not paranoid about this, but I do think people deserve their privacy, no matter what technologies emerge.

Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree that the use of drones opens a wide range of applications, and my personal interests lie in the field of spatial analysis, I immediately recognize their usefulness and would love to get my hands on one!

Exactly what I am thinking Although I have a feeling that whenever the government "guarantees", it's never a 100% guarantee.

All this while people argue and throw a fit about birth control and abortion. This comes in and they don't say anything about that.

Forget the search warrants... just wait... I predict that in no time at all this drone footage is going to end up on trashy tv programmes (you know, the kind which consist of footage of cops having car chases with traffic offenders or local health inspectors inspecting restaurants and finding rat turds or cockroaches in the kitchen).

It would certainly be a vast improvement on Google Earth!

Oh yeah, well Mister Smartypants, perhaps you'd care t'explain how them surveillance drones violates the rights of the fetus? Don't worry, see the guvment can't use no drones to go chasing around spyin' on a poor little fetus because the little feller is hidden snugly away inside the womb where Ol' Mother Nature and God intended it to be and where aint nobody as can see him. Now, if the federul guvment up and went an' fitted some o them drones with ultrasound scanners so that they could remotely film what the fetus was getting up to in the womb then you can bet that all the right-thinking folks wood be up in arms and marching on DC.

Problems: if I'm recording my kids playing in my yard, and the neighbor in his yard across the street is in my camera's field of vision, I'm committing a crime? How do vehicles work--am I allowed to record the cop who pulled me over while he's sitting in his vehicle? Not saying I disagree at all, just saying it's complicated.

Reality is hard to debug.

I think of this is an intent of use issue. Recording in public or from within your back yard is one thing, it's an entirely different matter when the camera is lofted up into the air and panned around to look within someone else's private property. The cop issue shouldn't even be an issue in my book, if they can record you for their safety, then I think you should have the same right (that's my opinion anyway).

Also, consider the difference between an manned airplane or helicopter flying overhead, sure they might be able to spot pot growers based on visual or heat imagery, but I don't think that's as much of an issue compared to some tiny device hovering within less than 400 feet above your home (and how would you like some creep flying his drone above your home, recording your children)? Clearly, there need to be restrictions.

If you raise a camera over a neighbor's 6 foot fence to film, that is considered an invasion of privacy. Recording the cop who is working in public is not an invasion of privacy.

Also, on the flip side civilian drones will cost alot less than the stuff governments use. and will be instrumental in discovering corporate wrongdoing.

http://gizmodo.com/5878612/drone-pilot-discovers-river-of-meat-blood

Indeed, the implications of drone use significantly expand the capacity for citizen science (as well as surveillance and policing). In the realm of cell phones, GPS, and miniaturized camera technology, we are just seeing the inevitable culmination of all these technologies which have already dramatically altered our society and have also required further regulation and legislation.

As excited as I am for such applications (such as the one you've cited), I still say proceed with caution. I think people should have to apply and go through a certification process in order to operate anything not designated a toy or hobby craft, certainly we don't want to stifle innovation or individual freedom, yet, as with anything, we also don't want people violating the rights of others either (and that's just common sense).

Also, there are some pretty good comments about the legality of the images obtained in that case. I'd like to know what a real lawyer would have to say on this subject...

I mostly agree that privacy laws should be extended to cover this, but... I mean, how? Drones are so cheap, and it's so easy to remain anonymous while using them, and optical technology is so good--I think, by the time any such privacy laws get passed, it will be too late. Trying to stop drone surveillance is going to be like trying to stop Internet piracy. If these laws were going to be passed, they should have been put through the legislative process the first time a Predator launched a Hellfire. At that point, it might have been possible to get regulations on the industry that deal with those issues. Maybe.

It seems like the only way to deal with ubiquitous private surveillance of private lives is ubiquitous government surveillance. How else to track down who owns the drone that took pictures of your wife sunbathing from half a mile away? Let's agree that it should be illegal--how the hell do we enforce such laws?

I mean, fuck, man.

I definitely get what you are saying. But then how do we already handle such cases of violation of privacy? Certainly perverts that get caught secretly recording women are violating the law and face criminal penalties for doing so. Additionally, owners of websites or other distributed materials could face civil litigation if they knowingly host or distribute such material. It seems to me that there exists a boundary of common sense that will remain the lowest common denominator in this regard, and that is the 4th Ammendment. That is to say that any activities that are permitted precluding the standards by which law enforcement must obtain a warrant.

In other words, any activity that a normal citizen might engage in that could allow them to observe private propery, activities, ect might be considered legitimate. I've looked into case law a bit since this thread was started, and it they do provide helpful parameters by which we could defince such controls, unfortunately though they are entirely within the context of direct human observation, and while engaging in activity consistent with reasonable transport such as delivering a package, driving a vehicle, or flying a helicopter or plane - in particular, taking off and landing, or navigating above a certain height limit (there is a reason why drones initially won't be allowed to operate above 400 feet, and that's to avoid collision with aircraft).

But there in lies the rub, drones are by definition unmanned, furthermore their navigation requires artificial optics, displaying an enhanced view to a remote observer and/or operator, which constitutes a distinct difference from almost other cases heard by the Supreme or lower courts. Sure, there are rules governing the use of elevated and fixed surveillence platforms, but they are different for vehicles, however the governing principle has always been direct observation by an individual. With drones, not only are they being limited to operate within such a proximity that an individual's reasonable expectation and protection of privacy is easily violated, but there is also no longer the element of direct human involvement. Furthermore, the utility of some drones affords them the capability to operate as a static platform with enhanced visual or other remote sensing technology, the use of which to attempt to observe beyond the limits of reasonable privacy would require a warrant. At least that's my understanding of the law.

I think there's something more basic: how do you catch my drone? Once caught, how do you prove it's my drone, if I'm smart and don't leave any trail back to myself (through the data connection to the drone and/or through sales receipts for the drone or whatever parts of it can't simply be printed with a 3d printer)? A guy with a camera, if you catch him, he's holding the camera. A drone, the connection to its owner and/or operator (what if I print out an entire drone and give it to you and you use it to perv!) is more tenuous.

Hell, it's not like I'd keep any data storage on the drone anyway. If you catch my drone, and you prove it's mine, you still can't necessarily prove that the pictures of you that I sold to the Sun were taken by my drone, or by me at all.

Going back to look at this, I guess the reason I'm less bothered by the privacy concerns is that I really only see two ways this can tip. One way, everybody has drones and nobody has privacy anymore. The other way, nobody but the government and the upper class has drones and nobody but them has freedom anymore. Theoretically, you could get the best of both worlds, but that would require... finesse, I guess is the best term. The US doesn't tend to legislate with finesse, that I've seen.

Automated surveillance--surveillance as a starting point, not even contemplating other tasks that can be automated through drones--is such an incredibly powerful tool that, soon enough, any group that lacks it is going to be in serious trouble.

Perhaps I'm the one being naive here, but I think what you're saying is going a bit overboard motorfirebox by saying there are only two ways about this. I don't understand why we all can't have free access to technology (which is pretty cheap considering), and still maintain privacy. I fully agree that their utility goes way beyond spying and police surveillance and I expect we will eventually see them as commonly as cameras or automobiles. But just because either can be used for unlawful purposes doesn't mean that we have pervasive problem with these devices which outweigh their everyday usefulness, I very much see drones in the same light. Still, we aren't supposed to drive without a license or take hidden pictures of people when they are going potty, our laws tell us so. All I'm asking is for is a legal framework along the same lines governing the use of drones (it's really not all that difficult). As far as people breaking the laws go, yeah, it will inevitably happen, however I think we will also find ways to detect, jam and otherwise counter the use of drones for these purposes.

Just imagine, drones could be used to deliver drugs, monitor police, etc. As with anything, criminals will use this technology, and you can bet that authorities will find ways of defeating it to catch them. The same goes for corporate or state espionage (just look at Iran and the US). Of course, a bird or gnat sized drone is probably going to be the real problem in the not so distant future, and at that point, perhaps you're right, guaranteed privacy will become increasingly elusive. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still have rules restricting their use. Heck, even using WD-40 in a manner inconsistent with it's labeling is a violation of Federal law.