Johnny Dronehunter: Defender of Privacy
This is a promo, but it makes a good point about privacy in the writeup on YouTube:
In the not-too-distant future, privacy is a thing of the past. Undeniable rights degrade like the paper they were written upon, and Big Brother has a constant eye on you and your family.It will take a determined man and an unequaled weapon to make a stand. And explosions. Yeah, lots of explosions.
If trouble was what they were after, they found it.
How do you feel about the video cameras starting to show up on buses, as traffic cameras, all over some cities (like London and Boston)?
Should you give up your right to privacy simply because you are out in public?
Alan Westin, author of a paper on privacy, describes anonymity as an important right to privacy that "occurs when the individual is in public places or performing public acts but still seeks, and finds, freedom from identification and surveillance."
I always thought skeet shooting was fun!
That said, it is a very serious issue. Surveillance is only getting easier - for those who missed it, it is now possible for anyone to eavesdrop on you by peeking through your window. Fascinating from an engineering point of view, but scary as hell for anyone concerned with privacy.
a_random_guy at August 7, 2014 12:16 AM
WANT ONE!!
I'm getting one.
Day-um!
o.O
Flynne at August 7, 2014 4:45 AM
Regrettably, your drone overflew my airspace.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 7, 2014 5:56 AM
He's living out my fantasy! And BTW, I love your new book, Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes say F*ck. I am so sick of rudesters and love your ideas for standing up to them. Thank you!
holly at August 7, 2014 7:03 AM
It almost makes one want to wear a Niqāb in public.
Almost.
Another question was, who owns the airspace over your property? Apparently, not you. At least, over about 500-1000 feet, it is in effect public space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
So, if you shoot down a drone that is less than 500 feet above you, it seems to me that you might be justified in doing so...
flbeachmom at August 7, 2014 9:43 AM
"So, if you shoot down a drone that is less than 500 feet above you, it seems to me that you might be justified in doing so..." - flbeachmom
However, you probably have to make certain the debris all lands on your property.
Fayd at August 7, 2014 10:09 AM
The state of law for low-level UAV flights is a big mess right now. In most areas, the FAA prohibits flights of less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle in the sector. If a manned aircraft does it, you can complain to the FAA and they will bust the pilot. However, with small UAVs, as a practical matter it can be very difficult to determine who was operating the aircraft. Further complicating things is the fact that there are exceptions for model aircraft -- the ability to carry camers onboard that downlink in real time is a technological development that was not anticipated when the regulations were written, many years ago. The FAA is supposed to have a deadline for developing regulations for UAV flights in the civil airspace of the United States by 2015. Progress has been slow so far, and there are many competing interests.
I will say this: people who think they are going to shoot down a UAV with their deer rifle are delusional. I've had the experience of having a moderately large UAV fly directly over my head at 500 feet during a military exercise. I could not see the darn thing, even with binoculars, even though I could hear it and I had a radar display showing me where it was. I've witnessed attempts to shoot down UAVs in tests, and let's just say it's a lot harder than you'd think. Unless it's right in your face, you aren't hitting it with a pistol or long gun.
Cousin Dave at August 7, 2014 12:01 PM
Johnny Dronehunter doesn't appear to be using a pistol...
;-)
I have a hard time making the bullseye on a stationary, ground-level, high-contrast, well-lit target, at 100 yards, with a long rifle. So I believe you.
This is an interesting thought exercise. Because, if you can't defend your property (even theoretically), do you really own it?
flbeachmom at August 7, 2014 3:17 PM
I see cameras everywhere and honestly, I have mixed feelings about them. I don't want them to be used for spying, however if I am assaulted or murdered, I would like the video to be used to apprehend and punish the individual responsible. Yes, it's a fine line. One which I'm sure many people feel that I have crossed with my opinion.
Jen at August 7, 2014 5:53 PM
" Because, if you can't defend your property (even theoretically), do you really own it?"
Interesting point, and I'm having a hard time coming up with a reasonable analogy.
Cousin Dave at August 7, 2014 9:58 PM
I'm not a hardware guy... My hands are like a baby's butt, though with a more-appealing fragrance...
But I think laser identification-and-targeting systems for countermeasures (ahem) are going to be a big seller for Amazon at Christmas '17... The math is no more complicated than that for keeping a quad-rotor in the air. It's the frick of the frack, it's the -dum of tweedle's -dee.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at August 8, 2014 12:05 AM
Ah, there you go!
You wouldn't even need an explosion (tho explosions are always deeply satisfying).
You'd just need to interfere with navigational ability. Kinda like the cell-phone silencers at Disney. If one of those things wanders over your airspace, it'd just drop like a rock.
It might even survive the drop, in which case, does it then become your property? I'm not one to keep kids Frisbees and balls that land in my yard - I throw 'em back. But if the owner is nowhere to be found, then what?
Thanks for the reassurance, Crid.
:-)
flbeachmom at August 8, 2014 8:47 AM
Lost puppy.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at August 8, 2014 12:48 PM
"I don't want them to be used for spying, however if I am assaulted or murdered, I would like the video to be used to apprehend and punish the individual responsible."
Ah, yes. We will pay for your assailant's food and shelter for a number of years, then let him back out.
Enjoy the idea that someone else can be responsible for your welfare.
In the meantime, we will use the cameras to increase revenue, by billing you for every rolling stop and errant turn signal. I bet we can get $600 a day from your normal driving habits, because YOU are the object under observation, not some anonymous "individual".
Radwaste at August 11, 2014 1:37 PM
Leave a comment