That was my point - your provocative use of the word "hysteria" in the thread title implied, at least to me, that you disagree with the laws that were being publicized at the event.
So what is your opinion on the message of the event and the reporting on it?
In Pennsylvania we have an infamous political corruption problem. Our state treasurer blew his head off with a .357 Magnum at a press conference the day before he was to be sentenced in a bribery case. Our well-known football coach, Joe Paterno, was fired without a hearing following revelations that his assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, for years was sexually abusing boys.
I am a seasoned media professional in Pennsylvania. I can tell you that if some group or individual were to come out opposed to rampant political corruption in Pennsylvania it would not receive coverage without a relevant ‘news hook’ or event that made it relevant. And I can guarantee you that the state police would never hold a press event advising politicians not to accept bribes.
In Pennsylvania there have been several recent events were drivers have killed or injured others by driving the wrong way down an interstate or the turnpike. In these instances, an intoxicated individual piloted a 3,000 lb. piece of machinery the wrong direction down a public roadway, gravely endangering others. Yet, if the state police were to hold a press event and warn the public not to drive their cars the wrong way down a street, people would say that’s ridiculous, and common sense.
The observation in this post is that their was no event involving a drone interfering with first responders that warranted this press event or article. And so, yes, I see this article as an example of the current anti-drone hysteria.
You my not agree, and power to you.
I would say that Pennsylvania, as the article mentions in passing, just passed a law forbidding the use of drones for ‘surveillance’ or ‘invasion of privacy.’ There seems to be great confusion about what that means in Pennsylvania. Does that mean, have some have worried, that any photograph or video of someone’s private property from 400 feet qualifies one for an arrest?
I’d note that no one, to my knowledge, has yet to be prosecuted under this new drone law. But a press conference discussing what is or is not allowed by this newly enacted law would be more educational and worthwhile to the public than the above article which yes, to me, seems rooted in current hysteria.