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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

[lookout]

 

[Flashheart]

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

 

[fly253]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.