Drone Shot Down

[Greg Boston]

I'll take a second look at it, Ervin.I have been pretty busy as of late and didn't have time to look at how to keep the thread on topic.

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

I hadn't realised it was a political hotspot - so sorry for that.

Seriously though, the law in the US, if I have understood it, does within certain limits give people permission to do this. However, the law has no precise way of dealing with aerial objects. Let's assume you have a paid commission to overfly a property for the purposes of recording the layout and appearance - I'm thinking property sales (what we'd call estate agents, and you, I think realtors??).

This is a perfectly reasonable use, but angles are important - filling the frame probably pushes the height limit as they're usually wide angle devices. The drone is then flying at the legal minimum altitude, but probably below it, because 500ft is still pretty high. The cameras face forward and down, so a drone will be over somebody else property to take the shot, not over the target? Looking upwards, many home owners would assume it is they who are the target - they cannot see the frame!

If your laws allow it, the drone would be a legitimate target. Here, we would have an impossible job to locate the person with the control and get them arrested, and many police forces would not prioritise it as an essential immediate problem. So here, we can moan and groan, but in the US there would be a legal alternative. This case is obviously a distorted one, but Pythagoras is the problem. The camera is on the hypotenuse with the altitude (maybe the real problem) on the opposite side. The real subject is the distance away on the adjacent side. From the ground, this is not visible.

If overflying is banned, it will be impossible to take the kinds of shots people want. The people on the ground are understandably ignorant.

Somebody will produce a gun 'rule' and taking potshots on something over your own property could be more common.

No, it really is illegal to discharge a weapon within most municipalities unless there is an immediate threat to your life. An overflying camera doesn't really quality in that respect. The proper course of action, much like you mentioned, would have been for the homeowner to contact local law enforcement who can then advise whether any laws are being broken.

The political nature of these topics deals with many recent stories in our news about UAV's and there are many local states and municipalities rushing to pass laws and ordinances that ban aerial photography specifically from a UAV. It's a knee jerk reaction to satisfy the public, but in reality does nothing as there are already laws regarding improper photography, voyeurism, trespass, etc.

You are correct about the potential problems with residential area real estate photography as that is one of the prime applications for lower cost UAV systems.

My problem with your posts is only when you make commentary about the gun laws in the US vs. UK as that is always something that goes into a debate( one I've had on Skype many times with friends in your part of the planet) and as stated earlier, DVINFO isn't the place to debate that topic.

-gb-

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by Ervin Farkas

Greg,

I was the original poster of the discussion you deleted entirely. It started as a clean discussion, fact based, with an official document I posted... a discussion about the legality of drones in GA.

Would it not serve better the purpose of this forum to delete only the offending post instead of deleting the whole discussion?

Respectfully,

I was the follow up poster who brought up the gun laws situation. My apologies for that, like Paul I didn't realise what a sensitive subject it was :-( I did wonder where the thread went though.

Roger

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I was the follow up poster who brought up the gun laws situation. My apologies for that, like Paul I didn't realise what a sensitive subject it was :-( I did wonder where the thread went though.

Roger

Thanks Roger. Apologies to Paul as I had it my mind it was his posts in the other thread.

Anyway, as to the current event which brought this thread up, the court date is scheduled for September so we should all probably just wait for the outcome of that hearing.

-gb-

[John Nantz]

Greg Boston:

So someone makes a post you don’t like and then you delete it.

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I was the follow up poster who brought up the gun laws situation. My apologies for that, like Paul I didn't realise what a sensitive subject it was :-( I did wonder where the thread went though.

There is another option we’ve seen you use which is to move it to Area 51. It would seem the thread could have been easily moved there instead of just deleting it.

[Roger Gunkel]

Originally Posted by John Nantz

Greg Boston:

So someone makes a post you don’t like and then you delete it.



There is another option we’ve seen you use which is to move it to Area 51. It would seem the thread could have been easily moved there instead of just deleting it.

Hi John,

As the poster who brought gun control into that thread, I have no objection to him removing that aspect of it. I feel very strongly about the subject which is why I posted, perhaps somewhat naively as a UK citizen, but fully understand why it could be seen as turning into a heated political debate, which may not be appropriate on this refreshingly amicable forum.

I also have no idea what else was posted following my post, as it had disappeared by the time I looked again, but Greg presumably felt it was heading in an unacceptable direction.

Roger

[Les Wilson]

I posted after yours. I felt your post was OT and ignored it and responded to Ervin's point.

Speaking of OT, now maybe we turn this thread back on topic:

Selfie drones are on the way which will only make matters worse. According to one Hotel:

"Selfies are a very important part of life,” said Mike DeFrino, CEO of Kimpton Hotels and Restaurants who has seen demand from the people who want to take selfies explode -- the hotel chain now gives out selfie sticks at all of their hotels. “They get to share what they’re doing with their friends back home and we get to be a part of that.”
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/07/...-selfie-drone/

[Roger Gunkel]

Shhhhhh! don't mention selfies with a drone Les or they will be appearing like a swarm of bees. Seriously though, I fear that many people's basic inability to use common sense and follow recommendations will lead to a total ban on drone flying in many areas.

Totally unrelated but referring to common sense, our local park has probably 50-60 dog walkers walking their dogs every day, but 2 or 3 regularly fail to pick up their dogs mess, which has led to a proposal to ban all dogs from the park despite repeated warnings. Why do a tiny percentage of people have to be so selfish and anti social to the detriment of everybody else in so many walks of life.

Roger

[Mark Williams]

Imagine a selfie drone with an inconspicuous tag/transmitter you can put on a person or vehicle. Or facial recognition. A Paparazzi's dream.

[Matt Sharp]

I guess he should have used a fishing rod.

YouTube (Short URL)

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by John Nantz

Greg Boston:

So someone makes a post you don’t like and then you delete it.



There is another option we’ve seen you use which is to move it to Area 51. It would seem the thread could have been easily moved there instead of just deleting it.

Hi John,

Area 51 is specifically for discussing 'rumors' of new gear, etc. No thread is ever deleted. It is simply moved into an area that only the moderators can view. It can be modified and restored to view if need be.

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

Hi John,

As the poster who brought gun control into that thread, I have no objection to him removing that aspect of it. I feel very strongly about the subject which is why I posted, perhaps somewhat naively as a UK citizen, but fully understand why it could be seen as turning into a heated political debate, which may not be appropriate on this refreshingly amicable forum.

I also have no idea what else was posted following my post, as it had disappeared by the time I looked again, but Greg presumably felt it was heading in an unacceptable direction.

Roger

Thank you very much Roger for your understanding. That topic is one of great debate both inside/outside the US and within the US itself. There are people who feel very strongly about both sides and I have seen far too many discussions on other parts of the internet that devolve into vitriol and we just don't want that to happen on any part of DVINFO. Chris has always striven to keep DVINFO as a "refreshingly amicable forum", as you stated.