So it begins....
- Thread starter Macsgrafs
- Start date
helloman1976
Ziptie Relocation Expert
Hey, but at least you can still get drunk and bungee jump off a bridge...that's still legal and you can film it too, talk about FPV.
Become the multicopter...
Aviator
Member
There is plenty of media about at the moment about drones etc and how they will take over the world and control humans and spy on everyone and all the rest of that Bulls**t... So unfortunately you will get mutants using it to their advantage to win votes or peoples confidence, as always people will be scared of what they do not understand. It was once the stuff of science fiction books, and now it is reality as with much you read in SF books, give it a few years and it becomes reality? almost as if someone knew it was coming . It is simple to alot of us on these forums but some people have never even heard or seen a multicopter with a camera on it before, things will change in the next few years and we have to stick together because there will be opposition from those who are afraid of change and those with no vision....
. It is simple to alot of us on these forums but some people have never even heard or seen a multicopter with a camera on it before, things will change in the next few years and we have to stick together because there will be opposition from those who are afraid of change and those with no vision....helloman1976
Ziptie Relocation Expert
Exactly but this isn't England and we have something called The Bill of Rights that'll need to be followed as well. I'm MORE than happy to abide by Freedom of Speech as well as people's personal freedom and privacy. There are already laws to protect your privacy though so let's use those and enforce them before we make new laws regarding flying cameras.
Which laws protect citizens privacy with respect to being filmed autonomously without their knowledge??
I think I probably agree that in general, and that extant "window peeping" laws should be the general idea (with some fly over restrictions for safety). I can't really figure out what the difference is between photographing people from a high-rise window, roof or full sized aircraft and photographing from a remotely piloted aircraft. Sort of like the difference between a Ruger mini 14 and an AR 15. (Functionally none).
DucktileMedia
Drone Enthusiast
Do people get hassled for flying helis without cameras? It is probably just assumed these days anything that flies has a camera. Actually they should outlaw commercial airlines from allowing passengers to carry cameras as they might take pictures of someone's rooftop.
My house backs on to a large and very busy park. The park is entirely surrounded by residential home. From the park very few homes are visible either because of fences or hedges. So within the confines of the peoples properties that back on to this park, including my own there is a decent amount of personal privacy. This means people can safely if they wished to, wander around naked in their backyard for example or leave their curtains wide open and not have any fear of something being able to see what they are doing.
One fear is is that if someone like myself is flying my multirotor around in the park with a camera onboard I might then find on reviewing the footage and catch a couple in the privacy of their own bedroom engaging in the sort of activity most couples engage in for just one example. Thats an extreme example but people should be able to function in their own homes and on their own property without fear of being watched, even if its doing things as simple as reading the paper on a chair in the backyard.
So the point being that the elevated view means the normal and typical level of privacy home owners might expect in their own property is at risk. All the people I come in to contact with, friends, family, aquaintances, general public who I have conversations with regarding my multirotors all go to the same topic within these conversations. They all without fail make some comment or joke about the ability to be a peeping tom with my multirotor. Its not something any of us have any intention or doing but it is a real and on some levels valid fear.
So we shouldnt mock or dismiss those fears.
One fear is is that if someone like myself is flying my multirotor around in the park with a camera onboard I might then find on reviewing the footage and catch a couple in the privacy of their own bedroom engaging in the sort of activity most couples engage in for just one example. Thats an extreme example but people should be able to function in their own homes and on their own property without fear of being watched, even if its doing things as simple as reading the paper on a chair in the backyard.
So the point being that the elevated view means the normal and typical level of privacy home owners might expect in their own property is at risk. All the people I come in to contact with, friends, family, aquaintances, general public who I have conversations with regarding my multirotors all go to the same topic within these conversations. They all without fail make some comment or joke about the ability to be a peeping tom with my multirotor. Its not something any of us have any intention or doing but it is a real and on some levels valid fear.
So we shouldnt mock or dismiss those fears.
Wasn't mocking, in fact that was the exact point I was making in my first post. However, I don't know what regulations there are that affect full-size aircraft which could easily be carrying someone with a camera and long lens giving the same results.
Last edited by a moderator:
Efliernz
Pete
In a recent newspaper interview, I was asked about my attitude towards privacy while flying my "drone" (I hate that word)... and I said that I would be more worried about the new Canon and Panasonic point n shoot cameras with 50x zoom lenses - where someone from the privacy of their own home could zoom in on a window/house across the park... and with the use of a tripod, have at least one hand spare! He chose not to discuss privacy in his write-up...
Yes, the public image is a concern. My close neighbors know what I fly and that I am usually carrying a camera... and most of them are also happy with the aerial shots of their homes that I have given them after my flight testing.
Pete
Yes, the public image is a concern. My close neighbors know what I fly and that I am usually carrying a camera... and most of them are also happy with the aerial shots of their homes that I have given them after my flight testing.
Pete
Aviator
Member
In a recent newspaper interview, I was asked about my attitude towards privacy while flying my "drone" (I hate that word)... and I said that I would be more worried about the new Canon and Panasonic point n shoot cameras with 50x zoom lenses - where someone from the privacy of their own home could zoom in on a window/house across the park... and with the use of a tripod, have at least one hand spare! He chose not to discuss privacy in his write-up...
Yes, the public image is a concern. My close neighbors know what I fly and that I am usually carrying a camera... and most of them are also happy with the aerial shots of their homes that I have given them after my flight testing.
Pete
Nice
This is exactly the point though.. If you wish to see in someones bedroom window there are a 101 ways to do it, be it climbing a tree using a helium baloon or a zoom lens the list goes on..... It is as though UAV`s are percieved as being built exactly for this purpose? I bet there would be a different view if you found a lost person or the like with one.. In fact I remember reading an article of a guy that was filming or taking photos of his neighbourhood and actually unknowingly photographed a burgulary taking place, which led to the arrest of the culprits!
Macsgrafs
Active Member
2 pages of replies already...shows it's a topic which we all know deep down inside will affect our hobby/work.
Our systems are open to abuse, of course some will buy a setup just to abuse others privacy....but our governments do that already. As the law stands its illegal for our own respective governments to spy on it's own people...but there isw NO law that stops one government spying on a foreign people on behalf of that foreign government & vice versa...then exchanging that material...it's called ECHELON! But because its a government then that makes it ok????
The UK PLC is the most highly watched (by camera) nation on the planet...but of course we are a democracy
Our governments make up bogus bad guys & give them names like Al Quaeda, to keep the people in fear & so that we give up our freedoms for security...that is the sign of a corrupt government.
The last thing I worry about is some guy who's out perving with a MR & camera attached, he can be beaten by drawing our bedroom curtains.
As for laws that exist already...Human Rights, especially http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...act/respect-for-your-private-and-family-life/
But that right is abused daily by our own PTB.
Ross
Our systems are open to abuse, of course some will buy a setup just to abuse others privacy....but our governments do that already. As the law stands its illegal for our own respective governments to spy on it's own people...but there isw NO law that stops one government spying on a foreign people on behalf of that foreign government & vice versa...then exchanging that material...it's called ECHELON! But because its a government then that makes it ok????
The UK PLC is the most highly watched (by camera) nation on the planet...but of course we are a democracy
Our governments make up bogus bad guys & give them names like Al Quaeda, to keep the people in fear & so that we give up our freedoms for security...that is the sign of a corrupt government.
The last thing I worry about is some guy who's out perving with a MR & camera attached, he can be beaten by drawing our bedroom curtains.
As for laws that exist already...Human Rights, especially http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...act/respect-for-your-private-and-family-life/
But that right is abused daily by our own PTB.
Ross
Last edited by a moderator:
helloman1976
Ziptie Relocation Expert
There are many, many laws on the books and they would follow under voyerisum protection laws and laws that protect your privacy while in your own home. Also there are many pending laws regarding "paparazzi" and the media. If you are peaking in someones window filming them, you go to jail and they call them "peeping Tom's". There are also property rights and trespassing laws. There's a question out right now in regards to how much airspace you own and what you can do with it, right now you own all the airspace above your house all the way to infinity. They're thinking of changing that to 35 feet etc etc. So there are many, many laws out there to protect people already and there are many, many more pending and more to come as a result of FPV flying as well. There are also general safety laws, you cannot fly a drone near a person or you can be arrested for public endangerment. You cannot fly them above cars for the same reason. Hit someone and that could be an attack with a deadly weapon. We need to focus on enforcing the laws that already protect people and us from losing this hobby. Deal with the people breaking these laws, the answer is not to make new laws when there already there.
SamaraMedia
Active Member
Sorry Ross, and not to go off topic, but from where I live...
"Our governments make up bogus bad guys & give them names like Al Quaeda, to keep the people in fear & so that we give up our freedoms for security...that is the sign of a corrupt government."
Al Quaeda, are bad guys...
As far as the proposed Bill in Oregon, I hope the politicians don't make any knee jerk decisions on it. Privacy is a real concern with these new "tools" we have, be it for hobby or business, and we do need some guidelines for safe usage. I would hate to see a booming business, "UAV's", crushed because of a misunderstanding by the public because the government classifies us as fliers of "Drones".
John
"Our governments make up bogus bad guys & give them names like Al Quaeda, to keep the people in fear & so that we give up our freedoms for security...that is the sign of a corrupt government."
Al Quaeda, are bad guys...
As far as the proposed Bill in Oregon, I hope the politicians don't make any knee jerk decisions on it. Privacy is a real concern with these new "tools" we have, be it for hobby or business, and we do need some guidelines for safe usage. I would hate to see a booming business, "UAV's", crushed because of a misunderstanding by the public because the government classifies us as fliers of "Drones".
John
Come back to me with the actual laws which protect people from being photographed or filmed in either public places or in their backyard.
Its not as simple as a generic statement of " there are many many laws on the books" You might get a surprise if you check exactly whats on the books, its not as clear cut as you think.
The video in this thread is interesting because the guys when talking about the law proposals actually talk about the specific law and what it might entail. When they mention privacy laws they follow the generic phrase of " already protected by privacy laws" but dont actually go in to any specifics. From there people see their video and then make claims of privacy laws providing protection etc.
I work as a commercial photographer, if I go out on the street and shoot general everyday life I dont need any permissions from anyone I photograph unless I am going to sell the photo. I could point a camera at you, take your photo and you cant stop me doing it, there is no law stopping that. Only if I try to sell it for advertising products or services do I cross the line. Im betting you think you can stop me taking the photo and demand I delete it. How do the celebrity magazines get away with it and how do they get away with photographing celebrities with long lenses through their own properties windows if there are many many laws on the books prohibiting it?.
In the US It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property.
Photographing or videotaping a tourist attraction, whether publicly or privately owned, is generally considered legal, unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs.
Again, come back to me with the "many many laws on the books".
Its not as simple as a generic statement of " there are many many laws on the books" You might get a surprise if you check exactly whats on the books, its not as clear cut as you think.
The video in this thread is interesting because the guys when talking about the law proposals actually talk about the specific law and what it might entail. When they mention privacy laws they follow the generic phrase of " already protected by privacy laws" but dont actually go in to any specifics. From there people see their video and then make claims of privacy laws providing protection etc.
I work as a commercial photographer, if I go out on the street and shoot general everyday life I dont need any permissions from anyone I photograph unless I am going to sell the photo. I could point a camera at you, take your photo and you cant stop me doing it, there is no law stopping that. Only if I try to sell it for advertising products or services do I cross the line. Im betting you think you can stop me taking the photo and demand I delete it. How do the celebrity magazines get away with it and how do they get away with photographing celebrities with long lenses through their own properties windows if there are many many laws on the books prohibiting it?.
In the US It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property.
Photographing or videotaping a tourist attraction, whether publicly or privately owned, is generally considered legal, unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs.
Again, come back to me with the "many many laws on the books".
Last edited by a moderator:
helloman1976
Ziptie Relocation Expert
The laws are different when it comes to photography and FPV as they are not the same thing. First, FPV is not protected by Freedom of the Press or ANY Constitutional rights. You are not the press I'm assuming so you fall under "private citizen" laws. You cannot trespass and you cannot endanger my safety to take a picture. You cannot take pictures of me engaging in sex acts or intimate acts without my express permission. You cannot sell or reproduce or copy right images of me for profit without my express permission. Also, if you are taking a picture of someone that does not fall under the same laws as spying for example which says, if you are taking video of someone without them knowing it that's fine but the second you are recording audio it's illegal without their permission. FPV could be considered spying by a change in definition for example. Don't get caught up in "find me a law", there are thousands out there already and the simple change of definition can change everything in a day.
With FPV you are flying your camera and that falls under several laws already in existence. You cannot transmit video at the power we do without a HAM operators license so by flying and doing this you are already in violation of the law without a license. You cannot endanger the public, flying in public places is illegal if you are considered to be endangering the public. The point is, you want laws specific in regards to taking pictures of people and what I'm telling you is you don't need them because you can remove an FPV'er for any reason you can find if not just general safety by itself. Why make laws specific to FPV if you can cover all of it with things like the newly proposed "Steven Tyler Law"? Make a general law prohibiting the filming or photography of people under whatever conditions but let's not encourage them to attack FPV as if it's the problem itself. I'm not going to go out and pull up actual laws for you as this is not an law website so I'll give you only the general laws need to remove an FPV'er which is really what we're talking about here. FPV is already illegal and the second you add a camera, record audio and fly that camera while broadcasting video transmission without a HAM operator license you are breaking the law. The key here is, fly safe...be responsible, don't get noticed...
Last edited by a moderator:
Macsgrafs
Active Member
Al Quaeda created by the CIA...FACT! Before the CIA created that name they used to be called the "Mujahideen"...the ones supplied with american guns/missles to fight the russian occupation of Afghan! Also the same terrorists (to coin thier phrase) were given brand new shiny weapons (again by the USA) in the recent middle east uprisings. Please don't take my word for it...go search out yourself & learn some truths about government & thier corporate sponsors who make vast sums of money from funding both sides of any war!!!!
Bin liner (al quaeda leader) was in a Saudi hospital with renal problems during the twin towers, 3 men made up al quaeda...those 3 men from acave in Afghan (if you believe the official story) managed to fly multi engined jets (when they couldnt even fly cessna 150's & 172's), beat the most advanced defence system in the world & hit 3 targets....they even found a undamaged passport from one of them, considering everythign from the towers was turned to dust!
Of those terrorists that supposedly died in the plane crashes...why have 7 of them been in the press & on TV since
All that glistens John....
Regards
Ross
