Politicians make it a criminal offense to hold public office because someone in such a position /might/ become corrupt and abuse that power.
Anyone in Oregon owning a drone fitted with a camera could be jailed for six months, or a year if it's caught flying, if a new state law is passed. The rules were proposed to tackle, among other things, peeping toms gazing into bedroom windows. Draft legislation before the Oregon State Senate would, if put into the statute …
Yes, that's right. That's how life works. Law enforcement is not, contrary to many people's beliefs, there to prevent crime from occurring. They are are there to (try to) find a criminal AFTER the crime has been committed so the legal system can make sure he (or she) doesn't do it again. Pre-emptive policing is a dangerous thing to even consider. You cannot justify arresting and prosecuting someone for their intentions if they have not, in fact, done anything wrong.
That is one of the most frightening things I've read on El Reg for some time. There are so many holes in your argument that it isn't possible to begin to work out where to start.
You aren't Harlan Ellison by any chance? Only he has made me feel so uncomfortable about the way society could go (try reading "Harrison Bergeron" for a clue).
" with many enthusiasts attaching cameras to their craft for the purpose of recording their flights, not to mention certain ball-ocket experiments and other high altitude boffinry."
"No officer, it's a re-entry vehicle with a guidance camera attached.
Yes, I know it's got LOHAN on the side"
Most Western countries, including the UK and Oz, allow public gun ownership. The only question is in how much licensing there is - in the US next to none, in the UK a pretty fair amount of effort goes into keeping them out of the hands of crazies and weirdoes. The UK model is much better, but is rather too rigid in what constitutes unreasonable or irresponsible behaviour for the licensee (meaning that ANY statutory violation can result in you losing your gun license, even if someone starts a fight with YOU and you simply defend yourself, or in a moment of anger or fighting utter any threatening words of any sort). And the appeals process is horrendous, expensive, and rather biased against you. So the UK has the right laws, but overly rigid enforcement of behavioural standards, and the US is way too loose and doesn't even check psychiatric records. Somewhere between...
BTW, does Oregon have any restrictions on placing a .410 derringer on board the drone??? Of courses, you would need a prohibited camera to actually aim it...
"The only question is in how much licensing there is - in the US next to none"
Well, no. Firearms licensing is not a federal matter, but left to the states and local governments. Requirements for firearms ownerships varies greatly from one place to another and blanket generalizations are impossible to make.
I think having a drone with camera is an absolutely wonderful toy, if the range and battery life get a bit better than current consumer versions... you'd essentially be able to fly!
But one can definitely imagine a massive use of these for watching people in the nude either for personal use, 'journalism', blackmail, or peep-show porn sites.
Even if it's illegal to peep on people, catching anyone who is using a drone would be a nightmare so banning the sale of such products might, unfortunately, have to be the reasonable solution. Of course people can still built their own but then it goes from a mass-consumer-problem to a minority problem as few people could be bothered.
There's an Arthur C. Clarke story (with Baxter I think) which talks about the death of privacy. In that case it's due to the ability to open mini-wormholes but the principle could be the same.
So if I live somewhere not overlooked by any neighbours or roads, I have to make sure to close the curtains in case someone is looking through the window with a drone? Or make sure not to sunbath topless in my private garden which can't be seen any other way?
Considering how frothy-mouthed you lot get about anyone knowing what you're doing on the internet, I'm surprised you're in favour of people spying through your window.
"I have to make sure to close the curtains in case someone is looking through the window with a drone? Or make sure not to sunbath topless in my private garden which can't be seen any other way?"
I'd counter that that's a bit paranoid.
Peeking toms have better ways of getting their kicks than flying little planes around and capturing grainy non-stabilised images from drone-mounted cameras.
Hmm... I seem to remember a story called, iirc, "Welcome to the Goldfish Bowl". There was a huge time-viewer that allowed you to see the past housed in a massive building, and it could only look back if the event was over 500 years ago or something.
Then someone worked out a) how to make it small and cheap and b) how to get around the 500 year thing (possibly realising it was an artificial restriction). They released the machine to the public, and a very angry man from the government turned up with the simple question "how long ago is the past?" and then left, muttering the story's title. (or something).
IIRC it was neutrino-like particles that were used to visually reconstruct a view of any event anywhere. Originally the inventor thought it would allow researchers to peer back to any moment in time, but it turned out that signal-to-noise issues limited the time range to a few days. You could specify any viewing location, however.
Keeping the subject in frame must have been tricky, given all the wobbling and weaving our little dreidel called Earth does as it hurtles across time and space.
"But one can definitely imagine a massive use of these for watching people in the nude either for personal use, 'journalism', blackmail, or peep-show porn sites."
I'm really struggling to. I can't help think that this does pretty much nothing that binoculars don't already do. The only exception I can think of is Paparazzi using it to intrude further than their existing lenses and helicopters already allow them.
I'm assuming drones count as Game, right? In that if they're over your property, they're yours and you can shoot them?
Its OK to shoot pretty much anything over there isn't it?
Some jurisdictions get snooty about discharging firearms within city limits. In those places you might be reliant on 'self defence' statutes and/or a lenient judge. Speaking personally I find the idea of someone firing a gun out of a bedroom window at a floating drone to be horrifying. Where's the bullet going to go if you miss? Come to that with a decent handgun the bullet will probably keep on going even if you do hit the drone. Even shotgun pellets could end up peppering your neighbour's garden.
It's bad enough firing a gun upward within a populated area but firing it horizontally from a second floor window is scary as hell.
I keep waiting for the rest of the world to understand the difference between a well armed population and a bunch of trigger happy lunatics. Only an utter fool would shoot at a drone in a populated area. Granted, we do have more than our fair share of utter fools (AKA gang bangers), but they're still an extreme minority.
"I keep waiting for the rest of the world to understand the difference between a well armed population and a bunch of trigger happy lunatics. Only an utter fool would shoot at a drone in a populated area. ."
But don't you have people who fire handguns at cinema screens?!
Seriously, you want a new law just to stop the maybe two guys in the whole state who would be willing to go to all that trouble, when there is an internet full of porn available?
Anyway, isn't it already illegal to peep on people? Why bother with a new law, which will stop people from taking some completely innocent but very cool movies?
This is very much like banning all phone cameras because there are people who will use them to take underskirt pictures in the subway. Let's ban zoom lenses, too.
It seems a very specific piece of legislation. Its not going to stop people who wish to perform an illegal act anyway (unauthorised surveillance) from performing that act, they are already determined to break 1 law, what's another one?
More sensibly, how about mandating that all remotely operating devices with cameras carry a flashing orange light clearly visible from both the air and ground, this would seem to resolve the hidden surveillance problem whilst also covering a multitude of other potential problems as well, but not limiting legitimate users from enjoying the capability that camera mounted flying toys can bring.
I'd been looking at flying toys for a while, so when one came up in the HMV sale at half price I took the plunge.
I've never attempted being a peeping tom, but I'm guessing you need to stay pretty quiet. Quiet is N O T something that can be said for drones. Even with double glazing I suspect you'd notice the buzzing noise at the window (unless it was being masked by a buzzing noise in the room).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019