It's the kind of drone that prompted Eric Schmidt of Google to comment about them a couple of weeks ago.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/priv...ied-about-privacy-threat-civilian-nano-drones
Such drones do exist. That's a given. The little fly-on-the-wall spy things still exist only in the laboratory.
Eric Schmidt at Google doesn't understand the real world. He is hysterical about "drones".
The drone illustrated costs $20,000. What neighbor is going to buy that, (If he can), and hover it over his neighbors house all day?
Flight times are short. For spying, binoculars are the best tool. Cameras have been carried on RC helicopters for years.
If FPV spying, where would you set up your ground station where it couldn't be seen? Watch for the police while looking thru fpv goggles? Ridiculous.
Who would put up with seeing a multicopter hovering in their yard and then not throw rocks at it? The whole issue is a strawman thingy proposed by legislators who fear our government will start flying military kinds of drones over the continental US. Veterans trained to fly those effective military drones won't have access to them after they leave the service and return to civilian life.
Those military drones are large airplane fixed wing craft and need a runway. The Oregon legislation seeks to outlaw putting a GoPro camera on a little quadcopter.
I only want to put a simple camera on an RC platform which can carry it high and record pictures.
Criminy!