Hacker News Reader

Comment by baron816 | Hacker News Reader

Anyone else worried about the noise pollution that will result from widespread drone delivery services and “flying cars”? I’m thinking the pushback won’t happen until there’s enough penetration that wealthy interest groups will make it impossible to rollback. I can envision a future where we’re all just stuck with a loud constant hum from drones overhead.

View on HN

I'm more worried about having thousands of airborne google cameras flying about filming without peoples consent than the noise. Fossil trucks and cars are very noisy already.

Anybody is allowed filming in public (with minor restrictions on tunnels and bridges and government agency buildings in some areas), the courts have ruled on that many times. Plus they already have satellites photographing the whole planet daily.

I'm more worried about the drones breaking and falling on our heads.

Is the view of a garden from 20 meters up in the air considered "public filming"?

Can I fly a drone over the house of whomever I want and record all they're doing?

The law is not settled on how high you can fly above private property.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b9a60354-30c6...

But note, it's a different question from whether one can film your property from public space. I can fly a drone above the public street and film your property from the side. And it's legal.

I'm not really sure what your point was intended to be in your first paragraph.

"I'm worried about ubiquitous drone-enabled surveillance." "Well, it's legal."

I don't really see how that addresses any concern.

If we don't want it happening, we should make it illegal, simple as that.

That would be complicated. You'd have to make outdoor photography illegal.

arkades 1 hour ago [-]

I'm not really sure what your point was intended to be in your first paragraph. "I'm worried about ubiquitous drone-enabled surveillance." "Well, it's legal."

What part of that has anything to do with outdoor photography?

If taking photos/videos outside (on public property) is legal, then I can survey your property all day long from the streets that surround it.

It's very hard to make surveillance illegal without making photography/videography illegal.

Try and write out the law, if you think you can.

The FAA has wide latitude to regulate our skys, so there must be some gotchas to this hypothetical law that you're thinking of that aren't immediately obvious to me, so I'm curious where my blind spot is.

Eg. Video recording is prohibited from any Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), except by license from the FAA.

Said license would then include a requirement to get permission from the property owner.

It's one thing to put up a 9-ft tall fence surrounding your property to prevent passers by from taking photos as there are very few 10-ft tall people. It's another thing if 50-ft tall fences aren't enough.

> Eg. Video recording is prohibited from any Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), except by license from the FAA.

Congratulations, you've now banned storing debug information for when one of these drones inevitably crashes. Since I'm sure they'll be using cameras for collision avoidance...

So you just prohibited all video recording from drones, remote controlled planes, helicopters, air balloons. You know they are all used for creative and industrial purposes. No more bridge inspections by cheap drones, only by expensive manned helicopters. No more cool aerial scenes in the indie movies, only the rich can afford to hire a helicopter. No more observation balloons. Etc, etc, etc.

I’m more worried about Google pulling the same stunt they did with the Gmap cars and having thousands of airborne wifi enabled devices trying to get into every wireless network they can find and collecting data from it.

Well guys. Take your last relaxing walk outside. Because it's vuvuzela land from here on. Our children will never know how nice it was outside. The fact you could once hear birds singing and the wind blowing.

I dunno, our children may discover the joys of slingshots again. There'd be plenty of target practice for them.

It's not illegal to destroy someone's privacy but it is illegal to destroy someone's property. As odd as that is.

I wonder if there might be a loophole by which one could make all their private information classed as "trade secret" and then divulging any of it or snooping into any of it would be against the law.

Are they louder than delivery vans? I never heard one from close distance so I really don't know.

Yes. They sound like weed whackers.

Or like a huge swarm of bees flying overhead. That's what I thought it was when I first heard one of those--it turned out to be a drone flying only ~30 feet over our heads.

vuvuzelas You know, that annoying thing that ruined FIFA world cup matches?

Heresy!

I thought it was the corruption

They are comparable to cars driving on a highway, 75-80 decibels. Though that's small consumer drones.

Depending on the design, the delivery drones can be louder or quieter. We just don't know.

Cars driving on the highway are

a.) driving in a controlled designated area

b.) not near residential housing mostly but and more often than not, sound barrier walls are built in situations they are

the noise of a bunch of cars is also a much less annoying frequency than your typical drone, which is more of a buzz. I say this as a drone enthusiast myself; I only feel comfortable flying mine when other people aren't around.

> not near residential housing mostly

Maybe not in America but there are plenty of motorways in the UK that go right next to houses. For example:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Port+Talbot/@51.5978766,...

That's obviously a pretty insane road to build (60s were a different time I guess!), so I guess this doesn't really invalidate your point.

Anyway I think the noise won't be too bad. How many drone based deliveries are people going to get? Maybe one a week on average? I can live with that.

If all my neighbours are getting one or two deliveries per week, there will be drones in the street all day.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6382467/wings-drones-... 69 decibels measured at 15m during delivery. Presumably it should be quieter during the flight since it can climb up to 120m

Isn’t figuring this problem out what the FAA has been doing for the last five years? If we’re going to have public nuisance drones at the end of the day anyway, why they just let it happen earlier?

My understanding is that drones will operate sort of like power lines or a highway system; they will fly in straight lines on pre-approved routes and only deviate at last mile delivery. Hopefully they’ve thought of other measures as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com