This Hacker Tool Can Pinpoint a DJI Drone Operator’s Exact Location Every DJI quadcopter broadcasts its operator’s position via radio—unencrypted. Now

MS Coast · Mar 13, 2023

Without a reference or source, you're just presenting words on a screen.

I'm not suggesting that you're not correct, just that a source is needed to help decide whether the person who wrote that has any credence.

anotherlab · Mar 13, 2023

That screenshot from that post did not state that a camera is an extension of the eyes in any legal sense. There is more context on the page where I think you took the screenshot from: Photographers

If you go down the page further, there are exceptions to the "if you can see it, you can shoot it" rule.

Note that taking photographs in some settings, like schools, or taking photographs or recording audio where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy may be an invasion of privacy or other violation of law.

That would directly speak to your comments about taking pictures of a woman breastfeeding without consent.

There are other exceptions to that rule. There are plenty of public places in the US where you can not take a picture. Courtrooms are one example. You can't take photos in the Pentagon.

There is also a big difference between taking a picture for personal enjoyment as opposed to commercial use. That page did not address any of that.

anotherlab · Mar 13, 2023

MS Coast said:
Without a reference or source, you're just presenting words on a screen.

I'm not suggesting that you're not correct, just that a source is needed to help decide whether the person who wrote that has any credence.

The reference was at the bottom of the screenshot, aclusocal.org. A quick search of that site found the page that the screen was taken from. Having the full text from that post makes their statement more nuanced.

lookout · Mar 14, 2023

DARKSeifer said:
Well, I knew o could easily beat my detection test, so I did it a moment ago, 3.5Km detection on a Samsung Galaxy Tab A7 with Drone Scanner on a Mavic 3.

You just need to catch one beacon in order to pinpoint the operator's location or takeoff location.

View attachment 161533

Takeoff location is static, but to keep up with the droneses, you'll need to keep a heartbeat on it.

lookout · Mar 14, 2023

MS Coast said:
Maybe it's not needed. Maybe it isn't. In any case, the reality is that as of September 16, 2023 it will be required.

I'd certainly rather that it wasn't happening, but it's not going to have a significant effect on my flying, nor do I expect any problems.

One legal person says that if they are doing something in secret it is most likely being conducted illegally. The court just kind of pushed that issue aside when it shouldn't have. Of course this is in the scope of things before it comes to us. And we're expected to comply with things that aren't being done above board.

lookout · Mar 14, 2023

lookout · Mar 15, 2023

Flashheart · Mar 16, 2023

The combination of a moderately sized club and the utilization of an RID app could prove to be a profitable spare parts business.

fly253 · Mar 19, 2023

anotherlab said:
That screenshot from that post did not state that a camera is an extension of the eyes in any legal sense. There is more context on the page where I think you took the screenshot from: Photographers

If you go down the page further, there are exceptions to the "if you can see it, you can shoot it" rule.

That would directly speak to your comments about taking pictures of a woman breastfeeding without consent.

There are other exceptions to that rule. There are plenty of public places in the US where you can not take a picture. Courtrooms are one example. You can't take photos in the Pentagon.

There is also a big difference between taking a picture for personal enjoyment as opposed to commercial use. That page did not address any of that.

THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC.

anotherlab · Mar 19, 2023

fly253 said:
THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC.

That doesn't change anything with what I have posted with regard to what you can legally take pictures of.

Then you have the question of what is allowed legally, but would be ethically wrong. Like taking pictures of people at a nude beach. That would be legal at public beaches in the US, but ethically wrong.

lookout · Mar 19, 2023

anotherlab said:
That doesn't change anything with what I have posted with regard to what you can legally take pictures of.

Then you have the question of what is allowed legally, but would be ethically wrong. Like taking pictures of people at a nude beach. That would be legal at public beaches in the US, but ethically wrong.

Google sneaks up on you with their street viewer car too. They don't think you have a right to privacy either. Like it doesn't even exist.

MS Coast · Mar 19, 2023

lookout said:
Google sneaks up on you with their street viewer car too. They don't think you have a right to privacy either. Like it doesn't even exist.

The fact that Google blurs faces and license plates.in their street view images suggests that they do know that privacy concerns exist.

anotherlab · Mar 20, 2023

lookout said:
Google sneaks up on you with their street viewer car too. They don't think you have a right to privacy either. Like it doesn't even exist.

This actually does exist.

Google-Contributed Street View Imagery Policy said:
Google takes a number of steps to protect the privacy of individuals when Street View imagery is published to Google Maps.

We have developed cutting-edge face and license plate blurring technology that is designed to blur identifiable faces and license plates within Google-contributed imagery in Street View. If you see that your face or license plate requires additional blurring, or if you would like us to blur your entire house, car, or body, submit a request using the "Report a problem" tool.

Brojon · Mar 24, 2023

fly253 said:
You can’t trespass the eyes and the camera is an extension of that. You would be perfectly within your rights to photograph her. Now stalking/harassing is a different story but simply photographing her would be 100% legal.

Sorry but you are incorrect.
A person can deliberately seclude themselves for the purposes of privacy and as such should be treated as off limits. If the person is genuinely secluded how would you justify barging in to snap a photo? Good luck with that lawsuit.

Red Pyro · Mar 27, 2023

fly253 said:
THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC.

you have no idea what you're talking about. In Switzerland (at least) taking a picture of a stranger in public is illegal if that person is the main subject of the picture. For drone pictures it works because they are not recognizable, but saying there's no expectation of privacy is completely false. Maybe capitalize every 2 letter next time, it might be more convincing.

Red Pyro · Mar 27, 2023

fly253 said:
You can’t trespass the eyes and the camera is an extension of that. You would be perfectly within your rights to photograph her. Now stalking/harassing is a different story but simply photographing her would be 100% legal.

Surely if you have cctv signs everywhere there's a camera and you're not allowed to point your home surveillance cameras at the public street speaks against that.

anotherlab · Mar 27, 2023

Red_Pyro said:
you have no idea what you're talking about. In Switzerland (at least) taking a picture of a stranger in public is illegal if that person is the main subject of the picture. For drone pictures it works because they are not recognizable, but saying there's no expectation of privacy is completely false. Maybe capitalize every 2 letter next time, it might be more convincing.

It's illegal in most places to take a picture of a person as the main subject for commercial usage without their consent. There are exceptions for newsworthy events, but how the exceptions are defined is based on the laws in that jurisdiction.

Red Pyro · Mar 27, 2023

anotherlab said:
It's illegal in most places to take a picture of a person as the main subject for commercial usage without their consent. There are exceptions for newsworthy events, but how the exceptions are defined is based on the laws in that jurisdiction.

Even for private use I would say

anotherlab · Mar 27, 2023

Red_Pyro said:
Even for private use I would say

It's all based on local jurisdiction. I think Swiss law explicitly protects against commercial use without consent, but I didn't see anything about taking photographs for personal use. If the nFADP follows the GDPR, then the commercial use protections would extend in September include to pictures that had been taken for personal use from being posted to a social network.

Red Pyro · Mar 28, 2023

anotherlab said:
It's all based on local jurisdiction. I think Swiss law explicitly protects against commercial use without consent, but I didn't see anything about taking photographs for personal use. If the nFADP follows the GDPR, then the commercial use protections would extend in September include to pictures that had been taken for personal use from being posted to a social network.

I have this book on my waiting list maybe I'll be able to answer after reading it...