Drones threaten Civil Rights!

[Mac282]

A whole new meaning to the "In plain view" laws of some states. I like it when life was a lot simpler years ago and people's panties weren't being twisted up.

 

[theDRONEranger]

A whole new meaning to the "In plain view" laws of some states. I like it when life was a lot simpler years ago and people's panties weren't being twisted up.

In the “simpler years ago” city governments were not calling for “defund the police” while their city was being burned down by criminals!

 

[Mac282]

In the “simpler years ago” city governments were not calling for “defund the police” while their city was being burned down by criminals!

Yep. Except I live in the boonies, closest town is about 30 miles and thats only a population of 16k. So we don't get to much of the uproar out here. Kinda why I'm here, no bs to put up with and we take care of our neighbors if need be. The "simple life".
Hope you have a good day take care of yourself....life is to short.

 

[bcfd29]

Actually, there is a web site that addresses this issue.

Law enforcement drone policy

With the increased use of drones both by civilians and government agencies, it’s essential for your police department to craft effective drone policies.

www.powerdms.com

However, each state has their own policy. FAA regulates the air space, state government regulates law enforcement policy and procedure. For example, here in my favorite home state of FL, there is a statute that addresses and outlines LE use of drones: Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine The language of that statute; (3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
(a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.
(b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent* to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent.
*With the intent.. is the key phrase here. If you pass over your neighbor's house, and are in FAA regulated airspace (above 100' MOL), to be in violation, that complaining neighbor must show that you "INTENDED" to conduct survelliance on them or their property
(4) EXCEPTIONS.—This section does not prohibit the use of a drone:
(a) To counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk.
(b) If the law enforcement agency first obtains a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone.
(c) If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence, or to achieve purposes including, but not limited to, facilitating the search for a missing person.

this is a horrible "sample" policy from a software company that touts itself as a library of policies; it is someones great idea and not representative of what anyone else may be actually doing.

 

[RussDrone]

The intent is not to penalize actions that cause harm, but to prevent them from happening in the first place.

A logging truck going down a country road should not, under your concept, be not be allowed. It has enormous potential to to damage to physical roadside assets, people walking on the side of the road, and other vehicles. The probability of a drone doing any damage in any order of magnitude like the logging truck is negligible. So I, under your logic, should I prevent logging trucks from driving on public roads. Just think a little deeper.

 

[maelstrom]

The probability of a drone doing any damage in any order of magnitude like the logging truck is negligible. So I, under your logic, should I prevent logging trucks from driving on public roads. Just think a little deeper.

In the aviation world (which encompasses drone flying), much of the legislation is designed to prevent possible threats, not as a response to them.

 

[Thomas B]

A logging truck going down a country road should not, under your concept, be not be allowed. It has enormous potential to to damage to physical roadside assets, people walking on the side of the road, and other vehicles. The probability of a drone doing any damage in any order of magnitude like the logging truck is negligible. So I, under your logic, should I prevent logging trucks from driving on public roads. Just think a little deeper.

Poor logic... would ban all cars everywhere...
Please stay to the point folks... Analogies are failing in this discussion. Thanks.

 

[anotherlab]

A logging truck going down a country road should not, under your concept, be not be allowed. It has enormous potential to to damage to physical roadside assets, people walking on the side of the road, and other vehicles. The probability of a drone doing any damage in any order of magnitude like the logging truck is negligible. So I, under your logic, should I prevent logging trucks from driving on public roads. Just think a little deeper.

That's a false analogy. The number of logging trucks that have been reported flying near helicopters engaged in rescue missions is a remarkably low number.

If you want to use a logging truck as an analogy, remember that are a lot of rules and regulations for operating one. You can't just buy one and take a load of logs down the road. You can start with the FMSCA and the lawyers have some good advice too.

 

[RussDrone]

Poor logic... would ban all cars everywhere...
Please stay to the point folks... Analogies are failing in this discussion. Thanks.

My point is that I feel that statistical risk should be a factor. There is too much regulation that limits drone flights based on "what they might do" where I feel that limits should be based on actual experience of drone mis-haps or on flight behaviors that are highly probable. An example of a highly probable risk is flying drones beyond VLOS ... which, unfortunately seems to be violated regularly.

 

[maelstrom]

There is too much regulation that limits drone flights based on "what they might do" where I feel that limits should be based on actual experience of drone mis-haps or on flight behaviors that are highly probable.

So you're saying that the authorities should wait for a fatal accident caused by a drone to occur before bringing in legislation? I can't even imagine the litigation if that happened and the authorities had known there was a possibility of it happening but did nothing about it.

The current rules are really not that bad. From reading the posts here you'd think that people are really having their civil liberties infringed for no good reason and that's just not the case.