Pretty amazing...
http://www.youtube.com/v/QGxNyaXfJsA
Amazing and scary at the same time. The test demonstration alone is arguably a violation of the 4th amendment.
Quote from: FSBA on January 29, 2013, 09:24:44 AM
Amazing and scary at the same time. The test demonstration alone is arguably a violation of the 4th amendment.
Well until the Supreme Court of the United States of America gets involved? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-the-supreme-court-gps
Quote from: FSBA on January 29, 2013, 09:24:44 AM
Amazing and scary at the same time. The test demonstration alone is arguably a violation of the 4th amendment.
How so?
If no one is every prosecuted for a crime as a result of Argus, then there is no violation of the 4th Amendment.
And, if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have?
It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 29, 2013, 10:39:51 AM
If no one is every prosecuted for a crime as a result of Argus, then there is no violation of the 4th Amendment.
And, if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have?
(If no one is every prosecuted for a crime as a result of Argus, then there is no violation of the 4th Amendment.) What are the odds this is going to happen? And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...
United States v. Jones (2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?
If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...
United States v. Jones (2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29
Video monitoring is not quite the same as physically attaching something to private property. It's no different, IMO, than having a 'person' follow you around - a tail. Though, it's extremely more reliable and cost effective.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?
If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?
Ever heard of presumption of innocence?
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...
United States v. Jones (2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29
The difference is... the government actually installed a device on the suspects personal property.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 11:07:24 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?
If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?
There must be some reason that the Constitution itself guarantees against this? Don't any occur to you?
Your privacy belongs to you, and only you in the final analysis. Without privacy there isnt any effective liberty. This is kind of the most significant finding of Roe. vs Wade, after all. That not only is there a guarantee of the right to privacy from government, but also that there is a constitutional penumbra of the right to privacy inherent in all the other enumerated rights.
Taking that from you is as harmful as taking anything else that is yours by right.
The Constitution forbids surveillance by high altitude drones?? Surely the founders could never have conceived of such a thing.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 11:07:24 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?
If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?
There must be some reason that the Constitution itself guarantees against this? Don't any occur to you?
Your privacy belongs to you, and only you in the final analysis. Without privacy there isnt any effective liberty. This is kind of the most significant finding of Roe. vs Wade, after all. That not only is there a guarantee of the right to privacy from government, but also that there is a constitutional penumbra of the right to privacy inherent in all the other enumerated rights.
Taking that from you is as harmful as taking anything else that is yours by right.
What privacy am I to expect as I walk down a sidewalk or drive down the road or enjoy one of the many
parks open spaces that Jacksonville has to offer?
quote author=BridgeTroll link=topic=17356.msg315145#msg315145 date=1359475997]
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 11:07:24 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?
If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?
There must be some reason that the Constitution itself guarantees against this? Don't any occur to you?
Your privacy belongs to you, and only you in the final analysis. Without privacy there isnt any effective liberty. This is kind of the most significant finding of Roe. vs Wade, after all. That not only is there a guarantee of the right to privacy from government, but also that there is a constitutional penumbra of the right to privacy inherent in all the other enumerated rights.
Taking that from you is as harmful as taking anything else that is yours by right.
The Constitution forbids surveillance by high altitude drones?? Surely the founders could never have conceived of such a thing.
[/quote]
It applies to drones just as much as it does to the internet
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 11:23:51 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 11:15:34 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 11:07:24 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?
If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?
There must be some reason that the Constitution itself guarantees against this? Don't any occur to you?
Your privacy belongs to you, and only you in the final analysis. Without privacy there isnt any effective liberty. This is kind of the most significant finding of Roe. vs Wade, after all. That not only is there a guarantee of the right to privacy from government, but also that there is a constitutional penumbra of the right to privacy inherent in all the other enumerated rights.
Taking that from you is as harmful as taking anything else that is yours by right.
What privacy am I to expect as I walk down a sidewalk or drive down the road or enjoy one of the many parks open spaces that Jacksonville has to offer?
From your government or from line of sight eyewitnesses?
In the case of the latter, none. In the former, every kind and all.
And if line of sight witnesses are paid by the government to follow you? I'm not making a distinction between the two.
I know you're expanding the argument a bit, but this is mostly in response to IILY's US v/s Jones remark.
Quote from: FSBA on January 29, 2013, 11:06:14 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 11:01:17 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
And your other question (if you are outside and visible, what expectation of privacy do you have) Hard to answer but if you're doing nothing wrong should we all be followed?
If you're doing nothing wrong, what's the harm?
Ever heard of presumption of innocence?
For the most part you are Guilty unless found Innocence.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...
United States v. Jones (2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29
Video monitoring is not quite the same as physically attaching something to private property. It's no different, IMO, than having a 'person' follow you around - a tail. Though, it's extremely more reliable and cost effective.
But if the person that is being followed hasn't done anything wrong when does the "Video Monitoring stop?"
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 11:43:21 AM
Then they have the right.
The difference---to my mind-- is the ability for you to make a decision about which of your actions to make and when, if you decide to keep them private while in public. You can decide to wait for strangers to pass, or look in a different direction before you scratch your nether regions for example, or you can save your confiding glances to an already attached love interest, or you can pass notes to a religious figure at your own discretion.
And more importantly you can choose not to do any of those things on a street belonging to either the public or to the government.
Unspottable drones are a new twist, but untraceable, unauthorized surveillance by the government is something weve expressly forbidden for over two hundred years---except of course for the boobs who followed Dick Cheney's Administration down the rabbit hole.
Privacy is yours. And it is precious. Worth keeping in my opinion.
"Privacy is yours. And it is precious. Worth keeping in my opinion." Amen! ;)
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 11:43:21 AM
Then they have the right.
The difference---to my mind-- is the ability for you to make a decision about which of your actions to make and when, if you decide to keep them private while in public. You can decide to wait for strangers to pass, or look in a different direction before you scratch your nether regions for example, or you can save your confiding glances to an already attached love interest, or you can pass notes to a religious figure at your own discretion.
And more importantly you can choose not to do any of those things on a street belonging to either the public or to the government.
Unspottable drones are a new twist, but untraceable, unauthorized surveillance by the government is something weve expressly forbidden for over two hundred years---except of course for the boobs who followed Dick Cheney's Administration down the rabbit hole.
Privacy is yours. And it is precious. Worth keeping in my opinion.
Quoted for truth.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 11:48:14 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...
United States v. Jones (2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29
Video monitoring is not quite the same as physically attaching something to private property. It's no different, IMO, than having a 'person' follow you around - a tail. Though, it's extremely more reliable and cost effective.
But if the person that is being followed hasn't done anything wrong when does the "Video Monitoring stop?"
The government tried Jones for the first time in late 2006, and after a trial lasting over a month, a federal jury deadlocked on the conspiracy charge and acquitted him of multiple other counts. The government retried Jones in late 2007, and in January 2008
the jury returned a guilty verdict on one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base.[16] He was sentenced to life in prison.[17] ~ Wikipedia
So obviously, something wrong was done, but the methods used to gather facts are being disputed. I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that he was dealing large amounts of coke.
The Patriot Act You Don’t Know About:
We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn't know what its government thinks the law says. http://www.thenation.com/blog/166865/patriot-act-you-dont-know-about
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 12:07:52 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 11:48:14 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
It certainly could be a tool in prosecuting... or tracking a criminal...
United States v. Jones (2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29
Video monitoring is not quite the same as physically attaching something to private property. It's no different, IMO, than having a 'person' follow you around - a tail. Though, it's extremely more reliable and cost effective.
But if the person that is being followed hasn't done anything wrong when does the "Video Monitoring stop?"
The government tried Jones for the first time in late 2006, and after a trial lasting over a month, a federal jury deadlocked on the conspiracy charge and acquitted him of multiple other counts. The government retried Jones in late 2007, and in January 2008 the jury returned a guilty verdict on one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and 50 or more grams of cocaine base.[16] He was sentenced to life in prison.[17] ~ Wikipedia
So obviously, something wrong was done, but the methods used to gather facts are being disputed. I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that he was dealing large amounts of coke.
That's not what is in question? United States v. Jones, 565 US ___, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), is a 2012 Supreme Court of the United States case regarding government's installation and prolonged use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device[1]. Without a warrant, the government installed a GPS device on the suspect's car and continuously monitored that vehicle for 28 days.[2] Although the Court asked parties to address whether "the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment," the Court's ruling was narrower than its question presented.[3] On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously held that "the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a 'search'" under the Fourth Amendment.[4]The court did not address whether such a search would be unreasonable and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 12:16:36 PM
That's not what is in question? United States v. Jones, 565 US ___, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012),
I know it's tough to keep up, but I was responding with the original verdict to your assumption:
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 11:48:14 AM
But if the person that is being followed hasn't done anything wrong when does the "Video Monitoring stop?"
So I'll requote to save a few keystrokes:
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 12:07:52 PM
So obviously, something wrong was done, but the methods used to gather facts are being disputed. I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that he was dealing large amounts of coke.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 12:33:03 PM
NonRedneck I think that it would be fair to say that the reason people quote Case Law is because there is an idea that they would like to point out, not to retry the facts of the already settled case. ;)
Based on what I've read, the case isn't settled. The USSC judged that the GPS monitor was, in effect, an illegal search, and that the evidence gathered must be excluded. The twist comes now that the prosecution was planning on using the cell-tower signal location to prove his movements and that the defendant is also challenging that.
The funny part about it (or not so funny), as I pointed out to IILY, is that no one is arguing that cocaine was being trafficked, only how the information was/is gathered.
IILY is basing an argument of a premise of innocence and that doesn't appear to be the case here. And no one is disputing that the physical attachment of a GPS system, or even the tapping into a manufacturer GPS system, without a warrant goes against the intent of the 4th. I believe in this case that video surveillance, of a person on public ROW, would be completely admissible and that this guy would have no recourse for appeal.
Here is how I would envision this technology to be used for law enforcement...
Scenario... The ARGUS orbits above a city recording all the activities within and paying no particular attention to any one thing or person. A crime is committed (bank robbery, assault, purse snatch, rape, etc). Law enforcement gets a warrant... zooms in on the time and location of the crime and watches the comings and goings both pre and post crime. They could follow the criminals activities before the crime, during the crime, and after the crime.
In other active threads we are discussing the role of technology, the replacement of human labor with technology, and the advancement of arms with regards to the right to bear them. This technology... like many others... is simply a tool. It is up to us to decide how it is to be used...
I agree with you up until the 'getting the warrant' part.
Public view is public view, IMO.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 01:13:50 PM
Here is how I would envision this technology to be used for law enforcement...
Scenario... The ARGUS orbits above a city recording all the activities within and paying no particular attention to any one thing or person. A crime is committed (bank robbery, assault, purse snatch, rape, etc). Law enforcement gets a warrant... zooms in on the time and location of the crime and watches the comings and goings both pre and post crime. They could follow the criminals activities before the crime, during the crime, and after the crime.
In other active threads we are discussing the role of technology, the replacement of human labor with technology, and the advancement of arms with regards to the right to bear them. This technology... like many others... is simply a tool. It is up to us to decide how it is to be used...
While the technology would indeed be useful in the way that you describe, what is lost does not justify what is gained. And regardless of the technology being deployed there is a prohibition against unwarranted search, unwarranted surveillance and a deep legal principle of privacy. I really do think this is apples and oranges.
If used as described above... what is lost?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 01:31:17 PM
I agree with you up until the 'getting the warrant' part.
Public view is public view, IMO.
Using it as a method of compromise. Think of it this way... in order to get a search warrent... probable cause is needed. Regardless of whether the police wish to search a house or car etc. The same could be said for this technology. The recording holds the evidence... no one even knows it is there... until the police have probable cause a crime was committed. they would need a time... a place... a suspect, etc to access the recorded data.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:28:58 PM
While the technology would indeed be useful in the way that you describe, what is lost does not justify what is gained. And regardless of the technology being deployed there is a prohibition against unwarranted search, unwarranted surveillance and a deep legal principle of privacy. I really do think this is apples and oranges.
So, Stephen, (other than time, money and somewhat of a life ;) ) what's to prevent me from following you around with a video camera? Filming your daily routine. From your coffee at Bold Bean to your meetings at City Hall to your dinner somewhere in 5points. I'm constantly on public property. I'm breaking no laws. Possibly making you uncomfortable, but staying outside of the legal definition for harassment.
What's the difference?
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:36:49 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 01:31:41 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 01:13:50 PM
Here is how I would envision this technology to be used for law enforcement...
Scenario... The ARGUS orbits above a city recording all the activities within and paying no particular attention to any one thing or person. A crime is committed (bank robbery, assault, purse snatch, rape, etc). Law enforcement gets a warrant... zooms in on the time and location of the crime and watches the comings and goings both pre and post crime. They could follow the criminals activities before the crime, during the crime, and after the crime.
In other active threads we are discussing the role of technology, the replacement of human labor with technology, and the advancement of arms with regards to the right to bear them. This technology... like many others... is simply a tool. It is up to us to decide how it is to be used...
While the technology would indeed be useful in the way that you describe, what is lost does not justify what is gained. And regardless of the technology being deployed there is a prohibition against unwarranted search, unwarranted surveillance and a deep legal principle of privacy. I really do think this is apples and oranges.
If used as described above... what is lost?
The Fundamental Right To Privacy.
For whatever purpose and to whatever ends you might wish.
Imagine if this technology had been deployed when homosexual sex still carried a death penalty?
Or when mixed race marriage was a jailable offense.
Or at the height of Nancy Reagan's War on Pot?
The mind fairly boggles at what 'reasonable' use of this technology would have been justified in those circumstances.
So you are afraid of the government curtailing a basic constitutional right? You dont seem to have much issue with government curtailing the rights of law abiding gun owners...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 01:35:25 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 01:31:17 PM
I agree with you up until the 'getting the warrant' part.
Public view is public view, IMO.
Using it as a method of compromise. Think of it this way... in order to get a search warrent... probable cause is needed. Regardless of whether the police wish to search a house or car etc. The same could be said for this technology. The recording holds the evidence... no one even knows it is there... until the police have probable cause a crime was committed. they would need a time... a place... a suspect, etc to access the recorded data.
I think this is where our view differs. Probable cause to view a recording of a city sidewalk? I don't see it. I do see a need however that it (a warrant) would be required for recordings taken on private property ie: rooftops with no public access, backyards with privacy fences or generally anywhere that reasonable privacy would be expected. I don't think anyone should expect privacy, reasonable or not, when sitting in a public space.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:45:59 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 01:40:10 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:36:49 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 01:31:41 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 01:13:50 PM
Here is how I would envision this technology to be used for law enforcement...
Scenario... The ARGUS orbits above a city recording all the activities within and paying no particular attention to any one thing or person. A crime is committed (bank robbery, assault, purse snatch, rape, etc). Law enforcement gets a warrant... zooms in on the time and location of the crime and watches the comings and goings both pre and post crime. They could follow the criminals activities before the crime, during the crime, and after the crime.
In other active threads we are discussing the role of technology, the replacement of human labor with technology, and the advancement of arms with regards to the right to bear them. This technology... like many others... is simply a tool. It is up to us to decide how it is to be used...
While the technology would indeed be useful in the way that you describe, what is lost does not justify what is gained. And regardless of the technology being deployed there is a prohibition against unwarranted search, unwarranted surveillance and a deep legal principle of privacy. I really do think this is apples and oranges.
If used as described above... what is lost?
The Fundamental Right To Privacy.
For whatever purpose and to whatever ends you might wish.
Imagine if this technology had been deployed when homosexual sex still carried a death penalty?
Or when mixed race marriage was a jailable offense.
Or at the height of Nancy Reagan's War on Pot?
The mind fairly boggles at what 'reasonable' use of this technology would have been justified in those circumstances.
So you are afraid of the government curtailing a basic constitutional right? You dont seem to have much issue with government curtailing the rights of law abiding gun owners...
straw man. I have no problem restricting the trading preferences of gun manufacturers. I certainly don't think that either the God given or Constitutional rights of law abiding gun owners should be curtailed whatsoever.
What a curious claim to make anyways.
No straw man at all. The government is certainly working to limit those rights... especially with regards to privacy when talking about gun ownership. Register? background check? Sounds like a privacy slippery slope to me...
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Well actually you would be breaking Florida's rather stiff stalking laws, and most of your footage would not be usable under the circumstances you describe for the purposes of court testimony.
In no way would I approach, harass or otherwise engage you. Stalking is off the books.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
But aside from that, you are an individual and the two of us are pretty evenly matched as people. I can take countermeasures against your surveillance, for example. I can choose to meet where you are not allowed to follow, I can do all kinds of things to counter act your actions.
How does this differ from the eye in the sky? You are completely entitled to your privacy when it's expected, ie: where I can't follow.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
You have to sleep, you have to eat, you have to use the bathroom. I assume you occasionally have to have sex and will also need medical attention from time to time.
This is based on the assumption that I'm acting alone.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
You have limitations. And you also have a time limit. You can (and will eventually) die. Your purposes will die with you.
A government does not share your limitations, and we are not evenly matched. I do not possess the ability to fight back physically at the government. Nor do I really have the legal ability to do so.
Im surprised that you do not see the differences.
I can clearly see the differences, but it seems you're missing my point. That, if they wanted, the government could take the same steps using actual manpower. They can follow, they can take notes (we'll forgo the use of recording instruments as I'm not sure of the actual legality) and they can report. It is no different than using the camera, except, as BT pointed out, it is using new technology to replace humans.
I guess we can parse this 7 ways to Sunday, but my opinion won't change, and I don't believe yours will either. I don't find ARGUS intrusive in it's current form. You feel it's a violation of privacy. I feel that, currently, it's limitations allow me the privacy that I would normally expect in the scenarios presented.
IMO, No harm, no foul.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 02:00:48 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
Well actually you would be breaking Florida's rather stiff stalking laws, and most of your footage would not be usable under the circumstances you describe for the purposes of court testimony.
In no way would I approach, harass or otherwise engage you. Stalking is off the books.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
But aside from that, you are an individual and the two of us are pretty evenly matched as people. I can take countermeasures against your surveillance, for example. I can choose to meet where you are not allowed to follow, I can do all kinds of things to counter act your actions.
How does this differ from the eye in the sky? You are completely entitled to your privacy when it's expected, ie: where I can't follow.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
You have to sleep, you have to eat, you have to use the bathroom. I assume you occasionally have to have sex and will also need medical attention from time to time.
This is based on the assumption that I'm acting alone.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 01:43:38 PM
You have limitations. And you also have a time limit. You can (and will eventually) die. Your purposes will die with you.
A government does not share your limitations, and we are not evenly matched. I do not possess the ability to fight back physically at the government. Nor do I really have the legal ability to do so.
Im surprised that you do not see the differences.
I can clearly see the differences, but it seems you're missing my point. That, if they wanted, the government could take the same steps using actual manpower. They can follow, they can take notes (we'll forgo the use of recording instruments as I'm not sure of the actual legality) and they can report. It is no different than using the camera, except, as BT pointed out, it is using new technology to replace humans.
I guess we can parse this 7 ways to Sunday, but my opinion won't change, and I don't believe yours will either. I don't find ARGUS intrusive in it's current form. You feel it's a violation of privacy. I feel that, currently, it's limitations allow me the privacy that I would normally expect in the scenarios presented.
IMO, No harm, no foul.
In my scenario... I am actually adding a level of personal security by requiring a search warrant to access the data.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2013, 02:06:29 PM
In my scenario... I am actually adding a level of personal security by requiring a search warrant to access the data.
I get that.
I wasn't suggesting or insinuating that it should be open-source technology with full public access, only accessible to LEO, military, etc.... That doesn't prevent it from being mis-used, but limited access, I thought, would be a given.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 02:14:24 PM
1. It doesnt matter if you engage me under the stalking laws, you are still breaking the law. and the prohibitions in court use would still apply.
2. I can go many public places that you cannot go. And you are limited by your own ability to keep up with me. Unlike the 'eye in the sky' you cannot see all places simultaneously.
3. If you arent acting alone, then your entire premise falls apart then, doesnt it, and there really isnt much point pretending that the comparison is valid anymore if you are having to change the underlying conditions.
4. Once again, most of the activities you describe simply would not be admissable in a court of law, and I as an individual can take note of every single person of the government's agents and time my actions appropriately.
On these grounds, Im afraid that you didn't really advance your argument at all, so back to square one.
Perhaps you can formulate some other set of examples.
In conclusion,
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 02:00:48 PM
I can clearly see the differences, but it seems you're missing my point. That, if they wanted, the government could take the same steps using actual manpower. They can follow, they can take notes (we'll forgo the use of recording instruments as I'm not sure of the actual legality) and they can report. It is no different than using the camera, except, as BT pointed out, it is using new technology to replace humans.
I guess we can parse this 7 ways to Sunday, but my opinion won't change, and I don't believe yours will either. I don't find ARGUS intrusive in it's current form. You feel it's a violation of privacy. I feel that, currently, it's limitations allow me the privacy that I would normally expect in the scenarios presented.
IMO, No harm, no foul.
Darn! Everybody is making good points.
Let's say we are living in a town or village in 1792. What expectation of privacy would we have that we would want protected by the Constitution?
Without convincing a judge that there was a crime that had been committed or was about to be committed a law enforcement person could not:
Secretly listen to your conversations.
Break into your house or office to read your papers.
Hide in the back of your wagon to see where you went.
What else? How do we extend this to modern times and technologies?
In 1792 most of the people on the street would recognize you and note what direction you were walking in. If you were outside, they would know who you were with and who you were talking to.
Does the right-to-privacy extend to the right-of-anonymity in most circumstances?
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 02:36:15 PM
Except that surveillance and power lead to things like this:
http://rt.com/usa/news/tsa-stealing-from-travelers-358/
QuoteA TSA agent convicted of stealing more than $800,000 worth of goods from travelers said this type of theft is “commonplace” among airport security. Almost 400 TSA officers have been fired for stealing from passengers since 2003.
Pythias Brown, a former Transportation Security Administration officer at Newark Liberty International Airport, spent four years stealing everything he could from luggage and security checkpoints, including clothing, laptops, cameras, Nintendo Wiis, video games and cash.
Speaking publicly for the first time after being released after three years in prison, Brown told ABC News that he used the X-ray scanners to locate the most valuable items to snatch.
“I could tell whether it was cameras or laptops or portable cameras or whatever kind of electronic was in the bag,” he said.
Brown often worked alone, screening luggage behind the ticket counters. He was frequently told the overhead surveillance cameras, installed to prevent theft, were not working.
“It was so easy,” he said. “I walked right out of the checkpoint with a Nintendo Wii in my hand. Nobody said a word.”
With more electronics than any one individual could need, Brown began to sell the stolen items on eBay. At the time of his arrest, he was selling 80 cameras, video games and computers online. Brown said the theft was comparable to an addiction.
“It was like being on drugs,” he said. “I was like, ‘What am I doing?’ but the next day I was right back at it.”
Brown was finally caught after selling a camera he stole from the luggage of a CNN producer. When he sold the camera on eBay, he forgot to remove the news networks’ logo stickers.
“I got complacent,” he said.
TSA’s culture of theft
But while Brown believes he might have been one of the worst thieves at the TSA, he imagines the agency’s culture makes it easy for others to do the same. Many officers don’t care about their work and complain about low pay and being treated badly, he claims, which prompts them to steal. To make it even easier to get away with, TSA managers also never search their employees’ bags.
The agency says it has a zero-tolerance policy for theft and terminates the contracts of all thieves within the TSA. In the past ten years, almost 400 TSA officers have been fired for stealing, 11 of which were fired this year.
ABC’s interview with Brown highlights the extent of the dilemma passengers face when traveling with valuables. Brown is just one of many officers caught in the act of stealing goods worth thousands.
In February, 2011, two TSA officers were arrested for stealing $40,000 in cash from a checked bag in New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport. Using an X-ray machine, the men found that the bag contained $170,000 and removed some of the money.
In the first two months of this year, a TSA baggage screener in Orlando was arrested for stealing valuables by hiding them in a laptop-sized hidden pocket in his jacket and selling the goods on Craigslist. And, a New Jersey-based agent stole $5,000 in cash from a passenger’s jacket as he was going through security
While in April, a Texas-based TSA officer stole eight iPads from checked bags, while another officer stole a $15,000 watch from a passenger at the Los Angeles International Airport in May.
“It was very commonplace, very,” Brown said, describing the frequency of theft within the TSA.
“TSA is probably the worst personnel manager that we have in the entire federal government,” said Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation Committee. “It is an outrage to the public and, actually, to our aviation security system.”
When crminals do this, it is called 'casing'.
So criminals misuse things for nefarious purposes? Whoda thunk it? Same can be said for a baseball bat, telephone, camera, gun, toenail clipper... the list is literally endless. This technology... with proper safeguards could be used for many good things... we should identify those safeguards... and implement them.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 02:48:10 PM
you seem to be implying that these powers, these massive and dangerous powers of surveillance will only be used properly and for good cause.
So are you implying that the bad outweighs the good or only that it can?
1792, Stephen, not that it makes much difference in your point.
I guess the main question is does eyes-in-the-sky and face recognition cameras on poles on the street ( another scary technology ) go beyond being recognized by neighbors in a village? This sort of surveillance gives me a deeply disturbed feeling of uneasiness, but I can't articulate where the line should be drawn.
NRW's idea that it would take a warrant to go back and track strikes me as reasonable, but then I remember all of the warrantless break-ins and searches that the FBI did in the Hoover days. The potential for abuse is huge.
On the other hand, the number of crimes that have been solved by the use of video camera footage has made us all safer from crooks and the suppression of bad acting that has occurred from the knowledge that cameras are around and that we may not be anonymous is great.
There has to be a reasonable place between the extremes on this issue; limits or proper safeguards of some sort that we can trust, but that would not limit the utility of the technologies. I'm not smart enough to figure out where that place is.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 02:48:10 PM
well because the government is us. and we are all subject to the human condition.
you seem to be implying that these powers, these massive and dangerous powers of surveillance will only be used properly and for good cause.
Yet nothing in the collected history of mankind would give this idea credence.
Yet we have always managed... We gave the government the right (with probable cause) to tap phone lines when they discovered that evidence can be gathered. The same is true with computer technology... the same holds true with virtually every area where the government intrudes into our lives...
My conclusion from your statement above leads me to believe you do not trust government very much...
Luuuke... come over to the daaark side Luuuuke...
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 29, 2013, 02:57:55 PM
NRW's idea that it would take a warrant to go back and track strikes me as reasonable, but then I remember all of the warrantless break-ins and searches that the FBI did in the Hoover days. The potential for abuse is huge.
Actually, that was BT. I don't have any issue with it in it's current form. My idea for the warrants is to review data that was collected outside of the realm of reasonable privacy.
" and Wikileaks announced today that it hacked into the computers of Homeland Security and has released 100 terabites of surveillance footage of Jacksonville Florida. Stephan Dare was tracked and has been seen doing....."
Scary indeed!
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
While NRW may not mind people seeing his drunken antics
,
856.011 Disorderly intoxication.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
his occasional body functions,
More than likely.... 856.011 Disorderly intoxication.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
and his indiscreet moments,
800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act. And quite possibly another count of 856.011 Disorderly intoxication.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 03:13:14 PMhe is certainly free to make a video recording of himself and mail it off to the department of justice as often as he like.
Since in each case, a law was broken, I suppose I should expect a ticket or a notice to appear - especially knowing that I'm not in an 18th century village and that the government is monitoring the entire city through a video feed.
Had any or all of these 'acts' been done in the privacy of my own home, or anywhere that I would expect the level of privacy to do such things, then I technically wouldn't be breaking any laws and have nothing to fear.
This is where we seem to differ greatly in our perceptions of the ARGUS.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 03:32:41 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 03:29:05 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
While NRW may not mind people seeing his drunken antics
,
856.011 Disorderly intoxication.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
his occasional body functions,
More than likely.... 856.011 Disorderly intoxication.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
and his indiscreet moments,
800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act. And quite possibly another count of 856.011 Disorderly intoxication.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 03:13:14 PMhe is certainly free to make a video recording of himself and mail it off to the department of justice as often as he like.
Since in each case, a law was broken, I suppose I should expect a ticket or a notice to appear - especially knowing that I'm not in an 18th century village and that the government is monitoring the entire city through a video feed.
Had any or all of these 'acts' been done in the privacy of my own home, or anywhere that I would expect the level of privacy to do such things, then I technically wouldn't be breaking any laws and have nothing to fear.
This is where we seem to differ greatly in our perceptions of the ARGUS.
so would you consider the back yard of your house, completely surrounded by an 8 foot privacy fence to be 'public'?
Nope.
I guess, even though painful at times, it helps to read all of my posts:
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 29, 2013, 01:42:30 PM
I think this is where our view differs. Probable cause to view a recording of a city sidewalk? I don't see it. I do see a need however that it (a warrant) would be required for recordings taken on private property ie: rooftops with no public access, backyards with privacy fences or generally anywhere that reasonable privacy would be expected. I don't think anyone should expect privacy, reasonable or not, when sitting in a public space.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 03:38:29 PM
well then you are wildly mistaken about the usage of the word 'public' and 'private'.
No wonder you have such curious ideas on the subject.
Please elaborate.
I've made no mistake in my awareness that the camera can see where the general public can not. I've also made a clear delineation of how those should be handled and that the laws would not need to be changed.
If I am 'reasonably suspected' for committing a crime in public view and retreat to private property (backyard with privacy fence) then a warrant should and could be issued for the available surveillance, as in BT's scenario.
Again, I have ZERO issue with the camera in the realm of today's function - strictly video.
Here is a better video on the use of small unmanned aircraft or Spy Drones? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzHx7AxHmOA Now I have no problems with the police using these going after a bad person with a gun. But rules will have to be in place on how law enforcement use's them. So the spy drone can't be used for any reason. Because lets not forget it's not only the police that will be using these? Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public will be using these and you can bet the Media will have these in the air also. 8)
How long will this technology be the exclusive purview of the government? How long before Haliburton or Pinkerton or Farah&Farah have access to ARGUS-2? How would your significant other appreciate those videos of you and that cute redhead? Or your boss of you talking to a major competitor? Or YouTube of you sunbathing in the back yard?
What? Those - especially the last - were illegally obtained? Well, after your SO has left you and taken you to the divorce cleaners, your boss has fired you, and everyone is laughing at you ... maybe you can win a civil suit.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 29, 2013, 07:32:01 PM
How long will this technology be the exclusive purview of the government? How long before Haliburton or Pinkerton or Farah&Farah have access to ARGUS-2? How would your significant other appreciate those videos of you and that cute redhead? Or your boss of you talking to a major competitor? Or YouTube of you sunbathing in the back yard?
What? Those - especially the last - were illegally obtained? Well, after your SO has left you and taken you to the divorce cleaners, your boss has fired you, and everyone is laughing at you ... maybe you can win a civil suit.
See this is the problem and some of the people here on MJ feel it will never get this bad? Lets say you call in sick one day and your employer wants to make sure your at home in bed. It sends out their spy drone and it zips to your address. And your car is pulling out of the driveway. So the spy drone follows you to see if your going to the Doctor? But you head to the beach to surf on your sick day off. :( And if you live in the great State of Florida the next time you come into work your boss lets you go and they don't have to tell you why do they?
Hummingbird sized Drone http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sFe7JUhqcoY#!
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 29, 2013, 07:46:21 PM
See this is the problem and some of the people here on MJ feel it will never get this bad?
Then there are those of us who don't doubt that it can and will be used in nefarious ways.
There are also those of us who refrain from wearing out tinfoil hats outside.
There are also those of us who don't check The Weather Channel before leaving the house.
There are also those of us who still think that the glass is half-full - even if it's contents have spoiled.
And finally, there are those of us who realize it's not the 'rifle' that's high powered, it's the damn ammo used in it.
Quote from: stephendare on January 29, 2013, 08:22:06 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-drones-are-coming-2012-12
Drones can be used for more than just war.
Already, companies like FedEx are counting the days until drones are admitted to standard US airspace. The FAA will officially allow it starting in 2015, but the drones cannot fly higher than 400 feet above the ground and must be at least five miles away from any airport.
FedEx wants to be able to use drones to transport packages, rather than having to rely on passenger planes. That's because passenger planes need to be pressurized, which is expensive, and they also can't fly in formation, which is much more efficient.
Meanwhile, there's a growing community of amateurs who build and fly their own drones. The drones typically have two-foot long wings and weigh about two pounds.
Chris Anderson, former editor in chief at Wired, and co-founder of 3D Robotics and founder of DIY DRONES, is helping lead the charge.
Anderson started DIY DRONES, a social network for people interested in aerial robotics, in 2007. Since launch, DIY DRONES has grown to a community of 33,000 active members who fly drones that they have either been made themselves, or purchased from companies like 3D Robotics.
In ten years, Anderson thinks it won't be uncommon to see drones flying in the air.
Anderson is currently working on a "follow me box," which is basically a phone-sized box you would wear on your belt to summon a droid and have it follow you around with a camera.
For example, if you're a surfer who wants footage of yourself tearing up the waves, you would press a button on your "follow-me box" and the droid would fly out to you, position itself above you, and start shooting. Once the battery gets low, the droid would detect that and land itself on the beach.
People are already using drones to do things like find hikers and skiers in need of rescuing, take aerial imagery of homes and other properties, and survey archaeological sites in Africa.
"What we're doing wasn't possible 10 years ago," Anderson tells Business Insider. "The reason drones are popular now is because smartphones are popular."
What he means is that the creation of smartphones has led to advanced technology, like gyroscopes, accelerometers, armed processors, and GPS, that make it possible to produce cheap, functioning autopilots.
Anderson also compares the rise of personal drones to the rise of the personal computer.
"[Computers are] in a class of technology that previously existed and then people started adding the word personal to it," Anderson says. "The user and the new class of users are what revolutionized the industry, not the computer itself. Democratization of technology is not about technology, it's about who uses it."
Anderson says that by adding the word "personal" to drones, the industry has opened up to a consumer class that will find more interesting ways to use them.
"It's part of a longstanding trend to take technology from the few and give it to the many," Anderson says.
Anderson is now working full-time at 3D Robotics as CEO, after leaving his position at Wired last month. Shortly after he made the switch, 3D Robotics raised $5 million from True Ventures and O'Reilly Alpha Tech Ventures.
By the end of January, Anderson plans to pivot the company from DIY to plug-and-play, where all of the drones come ready to fly.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-drones-are-coming-2012-12#ixzz2JPwuEiDn
Good article Stephen. This seems to show the technology is coming... if not already here. Time to figure out the rules for which they will be used. From military applications... to law enforcement, to search and rescue, firefighting, to DIY hobbyists. BTW... radio controlled aircraft have been around for years.
Hmmm....lower than 400'? 12 gauge with buckshot ought to do.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 30, 2013, 03:51:33 PM
Hmmm....lower than 400'? 12 gauge with buckshot ought to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59ttSwYNspw
I must say until this story about ARGUS was posted. I didn't know much about these Drones unless it was in a S/F book or movie? My eyes have seen the light and I look forward to the day I see my first one in person! http://www.hoverflytech.com/ http://droidworx.co.nz/
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on January 30, 2013, 04:46:49 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 30, 2013, 03:51:33 PM
Hmmm....lower than 400'? 12 gauge with buckshot ought to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59ttSwYNspw
You do know how to scare a guy! Didn't know the damn things could shoot back.
Couple an armed drone with face recognition technology and you have a mechanical assassin. "Fly over that crowd until you see this face and then detonate within five feet."
This thread is freaking me out more and more!
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 31, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
Couple an armed drone with face recognition technology and you have a mechanical assassin. "Fly over that crowd until you see this face and then detonate within five feet."
This thread is freaking me out more and more!
Good! ;)
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 31, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
Couple an armed drone with face recognition technology and you have a mechanical assassin. "Fly over that crowd until you see this face and then detonate within five feet."
This thread is freaking me out more and more!
Hmmmmm..... Not to take this thread down another road, but don't other 'religions' use this technology? I'm not saying be more or less afraid, only raising the point that this already happens.
(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/suicide-bomber-8.jpg)
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on January 31, 2013, 10:53:05 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 31, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
Couple an armed drone with face recognition technology and you have a mechanical assassin. "Fly over that crowd until you see this face and then detonate within five feet."
This thread is freaking me out more and more!
Hmmmmm..... Not to take this thread down another road, but don't other 'religions' use this technology? I'm not saying be more or less afraid, only raising the point that this already happens.
(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/suicide-bomber-8.jpg)
??? A spy drone doesn't have a religion? ::)
Quote from: stephendare on January 31, 2013, 11:04:29 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 31, 2013, 11:00:44 AM
I think they have a harder time flying silently through a small open attic window at church dinners.
but hey, at least they will be able to accurately guide the little guys with the real time information provided by ARGUS 2!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQIMGV5vtd4
sheesh... the paranoia here pales in comparison to the concerns of gun owners... ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 31, 2013, 11:53:29 AM
sheesh... the paranoia here pales in comparison to the concerns of gun owners... ::)
“An ostrich with its head in the sand is just as blind to opportunity as to disasterâ€
It's not just us who are developing concerns about drones, so is Congress:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/01/drones_could_be_used_for_stalking_voyeurism_says_congressional_research.html
The sight of a drone in flight is likely to become a regular occurrence in the United States within the next few years. But the rise of unmanned technology could lead to new crimes like “drone stalking†and “drone trespassing,†lawmakers are being told.
A Congressional Research Service report published Wednesday, Integration of Drones Into Domestic Airspace: Selected Legal Issues, sets out the many contentious areas around unmanned aircraft. It cautions that in the future, as drones become more easily available to private citizens, we may see the technology used to commit various offences. This could mean neighbors using drones to infiltrate one another’s gardens as a means of harassment, or a voyeur using one strapped with a camera and microphone to photograph women and listen in on people’s conversations.
“Traditional crimes such as stalking, harassment, voyeurism, and wiretapping may all be committed through the operation of a drone,†the report says. “As drones are further introduced into the national airspace, courts will have to work this new form of technology into their jurisprudence, and legislatures might amend these various statutes to expressly include crimes committed with a drone.â€
Of particular note is a section in the report titled “Right To Protect Property From Trespassing Drones.†It outlines that in certain instances, under a section of tort law, “a landowner would not be liable to the owner of a drone for damage necessarily or accidentally resulting from removing it from his property.†This doesn’t necessarily mean that you can “use forceâ€â€"like shooting the thing downâ€"if someone flies an unmanned aircraft onto your property. But it does mean you could remove a drone from your property without resorting to force, and if it were “accidentally†damaged in that process, you might not be in trouble. Though, of course, it might be difficult to establish accidental or intentional damage in a court, and it could also be difficult to determine whether the drone had in fact been trespassing in the first place.
These issues may seem hypothetical nowâ€"but they are likely to come to the fore relatively soon. Last year, Congress tasked the FAA with safely integrating drones into the national airspace system by September 2015. Border security agencies are already using military-style drones like the Predator to conduct surveillance of border areas, and some law enforcement departments have used them, tooâ€"in one case, even to help arrest a farmer in North Dakota. Federal, state, and local agencies must obtain authorization from the FAA to fly large Predator-style drones, which can be used in designated airspace zones only. But regulations around small model-plane-size aircraft are more relaxed, and as they become more popular and affordable, legal conflicts seem inevitable.
Drones have prompted widespread privacy concerns, with one New York-based artist even recently developing a “drone-proof hoodie†to evade flying eyes in the sky. There are currently a number of bills being proposed by Congressmen looking to bring in provisions that will address drone surveillance. In December, for instance, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act, which includes provisions that would require the FAA to create a public website where it will list all locations of drone flights.* Markey also called on the agency "to provide guidance and limitations" on drones in the United States.
Of course, it’s easy to dismiss the chances of Markey’s bill ever getting voted into law. But with warnings about a future of “drone stalking,†he might be about to see a boom in support.
QuoteThere are currently a number of bills being proposed by Congressmen looking to bring in provisions that will address drone surveillance. In December, for instance, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act, which includes provisions that would require the FAA to create a public website where it will list all locations of drone flights.* Markey also called on the agency "to provide guidance and limitations" on drones in the United States.
Great idea! 8)
Quote from: Dog Walker on February 02, 2013, 03:39:41 PM
It's not just us who are developing concerns about drones, so is Congress:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/01/drones_could_be_used_for_stalking_voyeurism_says_congressional_research.html
The sight of a drone in flight is likely to become a regular occurrence in the United States within the next few years. But the rise of unmanned technology could lead to new crimes like “drone stalking†and “drone trespassing,†lawmakers are being told.
A Congressional Research Service report published Wednesday, Integration of Drones Into Domestic Airspace: Selected Legal Issues, sets out the many contentious areas around unmanned aircraft. It cautions that in the future, as drones become more easily available to private citizens, we may see the technology used to commit various offences. This could mean neighbors using drones to infiltrate one another’s gardens as a means of harassment, or a voyeur using one strapped with a camera and microphone to photograph women and listen in on people’s conversations.
“Traditional crimes such as stalking, harassment, voyeurism, and wiretapping may all be committed through the operation of a drone,†the report says. “As drones are further introduced into the national airspace, courts will have to work this new form of technology into their jurisprudence, and legislatures might amend these various statutes to expressly include crimes committed with a drone.â€
Of particular note is a section in the report titled “Right To Protect Property From Trespassing Drones.†It outlines that in certain instances, under a section of tort law, “a landowner would not be liable to the owner of a drone for damage necessarily or accidentally resulting from removing it from his property.†This doesn’t necessarily mean that you can “use forceâ€â€"like shooting the thing downâ€"if someone flies an unmanned aircraft onto your property. But it does mean you could remove a drone from your property without resorting to force, and if it were “accidentally†damaged in that process, you might not be in trouble. Though, of course, it might be difficult to establish accidental or intentional damage in a court, and it could also be difficult to determine whether the drone had in fact been trespassing in the first place.
These issues may seem hypothetical nowâ€"but they are likely to come to the fore relatively soon. Last year, Congress tasked the FAA with safely integrating drones into the national airspace system by September 2015. Border security agencies are already using military-style drones like the Predator to conduct surveillance of border areas, and some law enforcement departments have used them, tooâ€"in one case, even to help arrest a farmer in North Dakota. Federal, state, and local agencies must obtain authorization from the FAA to fly large Predator-style drones, which can be used in designated airspace zones only. But regulations around small model-plane-size aircraft are more relaxed, and as they become more popular and affordable, legal conflicts seem inevitable.
Drones have prompted widespread privacy concerns, with one New York-based artist even recently developing a “drone-proof hoodie†to evade flying eyes in the sky. There are currently a number of bills being proposed by Congressmen looking to bring in provisions that will address drone surveillance. In December, for instance, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act, which includes provisions that would require the FAA to create a public website where it will list all locations of drone flights.* Markey also called on the agency "to provide guidance and limitations" on drones in the United States.
Of course, it’s easy to dismiss the chances of Markey’s bill ever getting voted into law. But with warnings about a future of “drone stalking,†he might be about to see a boom in support.
This is a start in the right direction! ;)
Oregon Drone Bill Would Claim the 'Airspace' Above Your Shoestrings http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/31/oregon-drone-bill-would-claim-the-airspace-above-your-shoestrings
New 'Stealth' Fashion Look Lets People Duck Drone Cameras http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/24/new-stealth-fashion-look-lets-people-duck-drone-cameras
Welcome to Unmanned Vehicle University's UAV Basic Pilot Training Program http://www.aviationschoolsonline.com/school-info/Unmanned-Vehicle-University/1042/2734/F/24.php
Not often do we find aircraft falling from the sky, killing people or destroying property. However, I remember the recent crash into a house on the east coast of Florida. Even though in most cases pilots can steer disabled aircraft away from damaging ground based property or people, there are some circumstances which prevent avoidance.
Increased use of drones causes a more crowded airspace. Can a failing or disabled drone be controlled so that it will avoid ground based property and people? Just as a piloted conventional aircraft can in most cases be directed to the most harmless encounter with the ground, I suspect that most drone pilots can accomplish the same objective, realizing of course that there will be occasions wherein both the piloted aircraft and remote controlled drones will be uncontrolled, and therefore fail to avoid impacting valuable ground based property and people.
It seems that the only issue is one of quantity in the air, whether it be piloted, or drone aircraft. Excessive quantity allows the airspace to become crowded, which increases the chances of mid-air collisions, and the chances of crashes due to human, mechanical, or guidance malfunctions.
Whereas the idea of fun is frequently the only reason many pilots fly either the small aircraft, or the radio controlled model aircraft, what will be the reasons that most pilots fly the drone aircraft? I suspect that the line between the larger radio controlled model aircraft, and the drone, will become blurred with time.
Personally, I can think of few things more fun than shooting down, from the ground, a stalker drone aircraft with a rifle. This must be done away from residential conditions however because of danger in projectile fallout, and drone crash, to other people. And the idea of actually shooting down a stalker drone aircraft by using a gun mounted either on another drone or on a larger radio controlled model aircraft would be exciting too. Another option, although wasteful of resources, is simply to ram the drone with a kamikaze drone, or a large kamikaze model aircraft. Again, safety to ground property and people would be a primary issue.
When time allows, I would like to design and adapt a large model aircraft for stalker-drone killing. It will have an aft engine so that I could mount in the front, in the center of the fuselage, a single barrel, 30 caliber gun, operating as a semi-automatic, to be fired via button on the radio control panel. This stalker-drone killer method requires of course a camera on board the aggressor aircraft/drone, giving real time visual aiming ability to the controlling pilot.
This project would not only allow one to exercise one’s technical design abilities, but also one’s piloting abilities. The killer-drone must be sterile, having no fingerprints so that if it crashes nobody could track it to the building/operator. This could be fun in the extreme. And the only thing that gets hurt is the stalker-drone, and the feelings and budget of the stalker’s owner.
But then, what if the stalker-drone owner/operator sends up smaller, fighter type drone escorts to protect the larger stalker drone?
“Chuck Norris once shot a German plane down with his finger by pointing at it and yelling… BANG.â€
British army unveils toy-sized 'Black Hornet' drones http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/04/British-army-unveils-toy-sized-Black-Hornet-drones/7671360008879/
Switchblade Drone- Soon To Be Used By Federal Police All Across America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dgvBb5ke-E