Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
VOL? Visual Of Line? What?!??In the context of RID, the rules have been set for a few years. Flying within VOL and not flying over groups of people is nothing new.
VOL? Visual Of Line? What?!??In the context of RID, the rules have been set for a few years. Flying within VOL and not flying over groups of people is nothing new.
The ability to have "historic" offenses, or ex post facto laws, is specific to the country you are in. Since the UK has left the EU, it's no longer bound by the general prohibition against ex post facto laws. The UK Criminal Justice Act of 2003 essentially removed any block to ex post facto laws.If I had ten quid for every time I've heard "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" I'd have been able to get my mini 3 pro for nothing. This logic falls flat on its arse as soon as you clue on that rules change regularly and what was legal yesterday can very easily become illegal tomorrow. Given the fact that in present times, prosecution for "historic" offences is commonplace, that means all your historic data can be used to criminalise you in retrospect.
FWIW, the prohibition on enacting ex post facto laws by the US Constitution is been determined by the courts (see Calder v. Bull) to only apply to criminal law, not civil. And there are exceptions to ex post facto criminal laws, mainly with sexual predators.
And it's wrong, no matter how much we feel the act is vile.
While the "no expectation of privacy in public" principle is generally true in the U.S., this principle is not absolute and there are some exceptions. One famous case was Katz v. United States, where the defendant's conversations were recorded from outside a "public" phone booth. In this case, Justice Harlan created the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test" in his concurring opinion where he defined a two-part test:
Strongly disagree. They are every bit a part of the USC. That's why they're called amendments, and the USC has a formal process for changing it (through amendment).(Since this is an international site, to those unfamiliar, the 1st-10th amendments, and later amendments, are not the US constitution, they are bonus add-ons to the much longer main document, which few seem to bother to read….)
Strongly disagree. They are every bit a part of the USC. That's why they're called amendments, and the USC has a formal process for changing it (through amendment).
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.