Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

She doesn't even notice the drone. She's tweeting about something she saw on Facebook.

Also, while it may sound fun to us, I'm sure your average law enforcement agency has no interest in wasting time flying one of these things around unless he's looking for a perp.

In which case, would you rather have an office knock on your door asking "have you seen this man" or would you rather they just fly around in an UAV with thermal cameras looking for someone hiding in your backyard?

Lets take "Community Safety Cameras" for example. Everyone was very worried about the "Big Brother" aspects of these cameras in cities. Now after a decade or so of them being around, we understand that unless you want to walk down the street naked, and can do without anyone noticing, that these cameras are no more likely to arrest you (or invade you privacy) than an officer on the beat.

More over, the government/law enforcement has no incentive to invade your privacy other than to KEEP YOU SAFE, why? because if they can keep you safe, they keep you happy, and keeping you happy keep them in power, makes businesses more stability, allows them higher taxes and higher pay, and gives us a better society. Happy happy joy joy.

You want to be worried about your privacy? Look at private business and applied intelligence. People can dig up information and target you with advertising using technology thats 30 years old. Businesses buy and sell information about clients all the time.

Working in government, we try to keep as much information as possible out of the public eye...thing is...business want that information. Why? Growth. So when we tell them "no you can't have that" they get all pissy and make some phone calls. Sooner or later someone higher up says "make that information public FOR THE GROWTH OF OUR COMMUNITY" and then big business knows how much you make, what your house is worth, how much you use your internet, etc.

PHeller wrote: Working in government, we try to keep as much information as possible out of the public eye...thing is...business want that information. Why? Growth. So when we tell them "no you can't have that" they get all pissy and make some phone calls. Sooner or later someone higher up says "make that information public FOR THE GROWTH OF OUR COMMUNITY" and then big business knows how much you make, what your house is worth, how much you use your internet, etc.

What you claim "might" be true, but government is just as interested in growth and collecting information as big business. Privacy may be an imperative in your department; not necessarliy in other branches.

While I understand your point of view, it also has elements of a naivete tinted by rose-colored glasses. Some may see paranoia in my position but I'll defer to history as to why it is (perhaps) more realistic.

Drones, whether in the hands of government or private entities have more potential to suck than to benefit.

There probably does need to be some definition of property that goes beyond the physical land itself.

I mean, is it trespassing if you float over someones property in a balloon? What if the balloon is at 100 ft?, 50 ft?, 10 ft?, 1 foot?, At some point you need to be defined as entering the property. I wonder if this has been tested before?

Restricting any flyover of course is ridiculous. Any private citizen can get in a plane / helicopter and fly over someones property, take pictures etc. But once you start dropping down real low, there has to be a limit.

Also, as long as you stay out of general airspace (below 1000 feet in congested areas, 500ft otherwise) there should not be any issues with collisions etc. Flying into things... well that's another issue.

There is already a well know "thing" were people attach wireless cameras to RC planes and fly them as "point of view". Technically, they are still supposed to keep (outside) visual contact. Which of course is a good thing if you loose signal and ever want your plane back.

oldsaw wrote: Drones, whether in the hands of government or private entities have more potential to suck than to benefit.

The same could be said of guns.

What gets me is that we constantly have this chant of:

Less taxes, less government, less taxes, less government.

But yet we want more cops walking the street. More military patrolling our borders, and we want them to do it on a shoestring budget.

Well guess what? Drones are quite cost effective.

PHeller wrote: Also, while it may sound fun to us, I'm sure your average law enforcement agency has no interest in wasting time flying one of these things around unless he's looking for a perp. In which case, would you rather have an office knock on your door asking "have you seen this man" or would you rather they just fly around in an UAV with thermal cameras looking for someone hiding in your backyard? Lets take "Community Safety Cameras" for example. Everyone was very worried about the "Big Brother" aspects of these cameras in cities. Now after a decade or so of them being around, we understand that unless you want to walk down the street naked, and can do without anyone noticing, that these cameras are no more likely to arrest you (or invade you privacy) than an officer on the beat. More over, the government/law enforcement has no incentive to invade your privacy other than to KEEP YOU SAFE, why? because if they can keep you safe, they keep you happy, and keeping you happy keep them in power, makes businesses more stability, allows them higher taxes and higher pay, and gives us a better society. Happy happy joy joy. You want to be worried about your privacy? Look at private business and applied intelligence. People can dig up information and target you with advertising using technology thats 30 years old. Businesses buy and sell information about clients all the time. Working in government, we try to keep as much information as possible out of the public eye...thing is...business want that information. Why? Growth. So when we tell them "no you can't have that" they get all pissy and make some phone calls. Sooner or later someone higher up says "make that information public FOR THE GROWTH OF OUR COMMUNITY" and then big business knows how much you make, what your house is worth, how much you use your internet, etc.

PHeller, I'm not trying to get personal here. I'm sure your department does a fine job of policing as well as respecting citizenry. Some don't. Hence my concern about this and my opinion that it should be regulated to the nth degree. When power is granted it will be abused by some. A minority I'm sure but it will still be abused. The TSA and their sub-standard handling of airport security is one great example.

While LEO is often most focused on community policing and maintaining order there are other motivations as well. The motivation to make drug arrests for instance. This can often lead to fishing expeditions. What better way to "go fishing" than to utilize a drone. Then you have many more drug arrests on your books and can justify more funding for drug enforcement. More funding is good right? It is if your police dept is strapped for cash.

I also applaud you for pointing out other privacy information leaks that we should be aware of. Corporations do know way too much about the citizenry. A big difference there is that corporations aren't busting doors down depending on the information they have acquired. They also don't have arrest or confiscation powers. As you said, it is alarming that corporations have access to this data and the ability to mine it for their purposes.

Don't forget they swim also....My company also makes batteries for swimming robots...... http://www.bluefinrobotics.com/products/spray-glider/

PHeller wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Drones, whether in the hands of government or private entities have more potential to suck than to benefit.

The same could be said of guns.

It could be, but the facts wouldn't support it.

Let's not change the subject.

I'm always in favor of the progress of technology and its potential to lower the costs of government.

That's it in a nutshell.

PHeller wrote: I'm always in favor of the progress of technology and its potential to lower the costs of government. That's it in a nutshell.

Unfortunately gov't isn't set up to save money. Your dept doesn't spend all it's, you lost your budget.

I'd like to see us incentivise gov't to cut costs.

For instance, your dept saves 10% this year..............8% of that comes back to the employees in your dept as bonuses.

That'd be awesome...it'd also mean many more drones. What do you classify as a good police department? One that prevents crimes? Or one that just chases around people who have already committed them?

PHeller wrote: That'd be awesome...it'd also mean many more drones. What do you classify as a good police department? One that prevents crimes? Or one that just chases around people who have already committed them?

Good questions.

But, I suggest societal mores determine "acceptance" of crime prevention as much as the need for the police to prevent crime. Law enforcement is a lagging indicator.

If "society" hadn't evolved into what is today, drones might not even be an issue. Who knows?

I won't make an comments about privacy or the law related to this subject.

But I will say that one of our guys brought an r/c tricopter to the Jefferson 500 last month and got some excellent aerial video shots.
I'm even in some of them.

Judge for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRKJV3d19Uc