Police showed up my house within 15 minutes of flight today

[WanderDawg]

Assuming he "did" do something totally reckless, the LEO's still really can't do anything but report it.

LOL, you don't really think that, do you?

 

[WanderDawg]

So you would be ok with the police having a device on your car so they can constantly monitor everything you do, as "accountability" you know... ?

See, there's this thing called a "license plate" on my car that identifies who I am to every cop and traffic camera out there... along with radar detectors, traffic cameras, etc that are constantly monitoring everything I do, as accountability....

So I'm not sure what your point is here. You have no privacy on public roadways or in public airspace.

 

[DroningOn]

See, there's this thing called a "license plate" on my car that identifies who I am to every cop and traffic camera out there... along with radar detectors, traffic cameras, etc that are constantly monitoring everything I do, as accountability....

So I'm not sure what your point is here. You have no privacy on public roadways or in public airspace.

Serious question.... since you brought up vehicle identification, does this mean that you are also OK with automatic license plate readers that collects your car’s location and puts it into a database accessible by government entities?
Not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to see if there are any limits, in your and others opinion, to this type of surveillance conceptually.

 

[WanderDawg]

Serious question.... since you brought up vehicle identification, does this mean that you are also OK with automatic license plate readers that collects your car’s location and puts it into a database accessible by government entities?
Not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to see if there are any limits, in your and others opinion, to this type of surveillance conceptually.

If there were no such thing as roads and vehicles drove on empty planes with no signals or patterns to guide traffic and we prevented accidents by monitoring from regional control towers that had to actively track the position of every car traveling in the area? Sure.

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just think most of the complaints about these rules are centered around the typical paranoia about "big brother," but I've got bad news - that ship sailed long ago. I'm not about over-regulation either, but if your complaints boil down to "I don't want the government to know where I am," well then you should probably sell all your things, cut up your credit cards, ID, passport, toss your phone, ditch your car and disappear into the mountains of West Virginia without telling anyone, and stay gone. If your concern is that the regulation becomes too cumbersome and there are better more efficient ways to ensure safe airspace? Great, let's do that!

 

[DroningOn]

If there were no such thing as roads and vehicles drove on empty planes with no signals or patterns to guide traffic and we prevented accidents by monitoring from regional control towers that had to actively track the position of every car traveling in the area? Sure.

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just think most of the complaints about these rules are centered around the typical paranoia about "big brother," but I've got bad news - that ship sailed long ago. I'm not about over-regulation either, but if your complaints boil down to "I don't want the government to know where I am," well then you should probably sell all your things, cut up your credit cards, ID, passport, toss your phone, ditch your car and disappear into the mountains of West Virginia without telling anyone, and stay gone. If your concern is that the regulation becomes too cumbersome and there are better more efficient ways to ensure safe airspace? Great, let's do that!

I just asked a simple and specific question and you said “sure“. That’s all I needed

 

[WanderDawg]

I just asked a simple and specific question and you said “sure“. That’s all I needed

That was your takeaway?

 

[DroningOn]

That was your takeaway?

I took nothing away, I was just looking for clarification and you provided it. There was nothing “hypothetical” about my question. I outlined a specific and real world scenario in an effort to determine if you had limits on government surveillance and you said you were ok with, In THIS case, with such data collection. That’s all and I appreciated your candor.

There really is no point in having these discussions/debates if people are not upfront and honest about their positions going in.

 

[WanderDawg]

I took nothing away, I was just looking for clarification and you provided it. There was nothing “hypothetical” about my question. I outlined a specific and real world scenario in an effort to determine if you had limits on government surveillance and you said you were ok with, In THIS case, with such data collection. That’s all and I appreciated your candor.

There really is no point in having these discussions/debates if people are not upfront and honest about their positions going in.

There's also no point in having these discussions if your only goal is to present "gotcha" questions and then deliberately misrepresent the answers.

 

[DroningOn]

There's also no point in having these discussions if your only goal is to present "gotcha" questions and then deliberately misrepresent the answers.

How did I misrepresent “sure“?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

If there were no such thing as roads and vehicles drove on empty planes with no signals or patterns to guide traffic and we prevented accidents by monitoring from regional control towers that had to actively track the position of every car traveling in the area? Sure.

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just think most of the complaints about these rules are centered around the typical paranoia about "big brother," but I've got bad news - that ship sailed long ago. I'm not about over-regulation either, but if your complaints boil down to "I don't want the government to know where I am," well then you should probably sell all your things, cut up your credit cards, ID, passport, toss your phone, ditch your car and disappear into the mountains of West Virginia without telling anyone, and stay gone. If your concern is that the regulation becomes too cumbersome and there are better more efficient ways to ensure safe airspace? Great, let's do that!

It's not paranoia, big brother is here and he is watch. And every other means BB incorporates to keep track of you and your activities takes us closer to the potential for totalitarianism.

That said the genie is out of the bottle. With all we do know I don't think we know more than the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what the government is capable of given existing technology. All of that will probably be dwarfed as new technologies like 5G, facial recognition and other means of identification and tracking people become ubiquitous. Then there's AI.

Knowledge is power, power to coerce and control so I don't brush off any new recommendation related to regulation and control. There is no compelling reason but forth as of yet for RID as being proposed. Safety, total farce with no empirical evidence to make that claim. Sightings of drones near an airport (not one accident) is not compelling evidence that these regulations are need for the sake of safety. Has there been a rash of terrorist attacks using drones? I'm not aware of any cases of blackmail or extortion where photos/video recorded by a drone were used so the privacy issue is a farce. We're talking about spending billions of dollars on a problem yet to be substantiated. Are you telling me the FAA doesn't have more serious issues on which they could spend billions to resolve problems, problems that are costing lives in general and commercial aviation?

 

[Stacy]

Watch a lot of the drone regulation (and people who [Admin Removed] about drones buzzing around) go out the window when big business starts flying them all over the neighborhood. VLOS will be the first to go...

 

[Chip]

Serious question.... since you brought up vehicle identification, does this mean that you are also OK with automatic license plate readers that collects your car’s location and puts it into a database accessible by government entities?
Not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to see if there are any limits, in your and others opinion, to this type of surveillance conceptually.

Good question. Everyone likes to say the Aeroscope is "just like a license plate reader for drones!" What could possibly be more harmless? Its a slow pitch coming right down the center of the plate. Because many states like CA have very tough laws regulating the use of license plate readers very tightly controlling when, where, and how they may be used, who stores and has access to the data, and strict requirements to log and document everything and everybody touching the equipment or the data. Persons who violate the rules may be prosecuted for felony. Compare that to Aeroscopoe. No rules, no regs, no restrictions, no documentation, nothing. Just point your device in the air and start tracking and confronting people....

 

[Chip]

So I'm not sure what your point is here. You have no privacy on public roadways or in public airspace.

I guess it depends on what you mean. You cannot be stopped on the highway without probable cause (absent an emergency). Your vehicle cannot be searched without consent or probable cause (absent an emergency or incident to arrest). Your vehicle cannot be tracked by GPS without probable cause. The cellphone in your glove box cannot be tracked without probable cause. The US Constitution sets the minimum nationwide standard for 4th amendment search and seizure but every state can set even higher standards under their own constitutions and many do including WA and CA.

 

[sar104]

I guess it depends on what you mean. You cannot be stopped on the highway without probable cause (absent an emergency). Your vehicle cannot be searched without consent or probable cause (absent an emergency or incident to arrest). Your vehicle cannot be tracked by GPS without probable cause. The cellphone in your glove box cannot be tracked without probable cause. The US Constitution sets the minimum nationwide standard for 4th amendment search and seizure but every state can set even higher standards under their own constitutions and many do including WA and CA.

All pilots of real aircraft that I know are not only fine with being tracked, but the recognize that it is important to aviation safety. And yet there is this disturbingly prevalent attitude amongst hobby sUAS pilots that it's not only undesirable, but it that it infringes on some fictional rights. What on earth does search and seizure have to do with this?

 

[Stacy]

I think in the very near future, (small) drones will be relegated to a very specific altitude and/or elevation range. Say between 200 - 400 feet. The reason being is that very soon there will be MILLIONS of drones plying the skies. It will be critical to keep the "real" air traffic free of any possible entanglement with delivery, hobby and/or law enforcement UAV operations. It simply will not be tolerated (for very good reason). While it will probably not be a "free for all", my guess is that it will be largely unregulated as long as drones are hard coded from the factory to comply with these guidelines, and yes, that would include unique digital ID.

The idea that there will be a database maintained somewhere of ALL drone flights, with operator ID attached, is interesting, but it will simply not be feasible. It's just going to be far too much data (that will be 99.9% useless)!. I do think however that individual drones (that meet certain specifications) can and will keep a flight log just as they do today (probably cloud based). That flight log could be subpoenaed by LEO or courts for justifiable use, bit no, as much as "pie in the sky" government types would like it, there will be no giant "big brother' database of all your little excursions.

Is it possible? Sure. Feasible? Maybe for a while. Decidedly doubtful in the NTDF (not too distant future). JMHO as always.

 

[Chip]

What on earth does search and seizure have to do with this?

Do you not agree that the laws governing search and seizure of vehicles is directly relevant to whether anyone driving a car on a public highway has any reasonable expectation of privacy? Or do you believe that we all should be required to install trackers on our cars to feed data into federal government for safety reasons?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

All pilots of real aircraft that I know are not only fine with being tracked, but the recognize that it is important to aviation safety. And yet there is this disturbingly prevalent attitude amongst hobby sUAS pilots that it's not only undesirable, but it that it infringes on some fictional rights. What on earth does search and seizure have to do with this?

The statement in bold is the crux of the matter. There is no evidence to support the idea that tracking sUAS flights is going to greatly enhance safety. The overwhelming, vast majority of these flights, conducted with no tracking, have not been a safety issue according to safety records going back 20 years, even with the increase in usage over the last five years. There have been a handful of incidents I'm aware of where a sUAV has interfered with SAR operations. I think the speculations about millions of new sUAV commercial operations flooding the skies are exaggerated. At least I haven't read a viable argument for where and how those operations would take place.

Again, we're talking about spending billions of dollars on a safety threat that haven't been proven to exist in an environment where real risk to safety do exist and where the money can be better spent.

 

[jagraphics]

see & avoid? What is wrong with flying out of your window and looking at the screen of your cell phone to guide your flying?
Staying by a window is warmer, and gives you extra height.

Do you think I'm really making this up? What is there that makes it seem not believable. I agree that counter terrorist task force coming to your door 15 minutes after taking off is very surprising. But no so much when you see that they have the DJI Aeroscope.

Having watched the video you posted I would be VERY surprised if they were "counter terrorist task force".
lots of holes in your story.

 

[sar104]

Do you not agree that the laws governing search and seizure of vehicles is directly relevant to whether anyone driving a car on a public highway has any reasonable expectation of privacy?

Not relevant at all, unless you equate identification with search and seizure. Is that what happens to you - every time your vehicle is ID'd by LE you are stopped and searched? Privacy is a different question, and one that you guys are clearly unable to distinguish from anonymity, which is obviously what you really want.

Or do you believe that we all should be required to install trackers on our cars to feed data into federal government for safety reasons?

Inappropriate use of "or", since those are unrelated questions, and a red herring fallacy since that has not been proposed.

 

[Chip]

Not relevant at all, unless you equate identification with search and seizure. Is that what happens to you - every time your vehicle is ID'd by LE you are stopped and searched? Privacy is a different question, and one that you guys are clearly unable to distinguish from anonymity, which is obviously what you really want.

Inappropriate use of "or", since those are unrelated questions, and a red herring fallacy since that has not been proposed.

Does the US Supreme Court not equate electronic tracking to search and seizure?

As for question about tracking all vehicles, it’s not a red herring. It’s a question designed to discover your beliefs. It should not be hard to answer. Do you think everyone’s vehicle should be tracked by federal government?