Texas Declares War on Drones | Hacker News Reader

Texas Declares War on Drones

robots.net

65 pointscpeterso52 comments

Texas and its long tradition of "pride of independence" has, at best, only resulted in a parallel version of Federal Government policy. Undesirable Federal policy X will almost always still show up in Texas - it will just be presented and perceived as though it has been arrived-at independently as the will of Texans.

If sovereignty is your thing, other than a strong stand on gun rights there are states in the US with policy that correlates far less with D.C. and they don't make it their claim to fame either.

I've participated in the political process in Texas and I'm not sure that this is true. Take for example HB 80: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00...

I remember hearing about this and the subsequent threats to cut off travel to Texas. Yes, it is nice to hear when Texas lawmakers stand up for their state's sovereignty.

As both a libertarian and tech junkie, I have serious concerns about the use of drone surveillance and am excited to see the technology develop.

The best I can figure, what's needed is parity in drone use. That is, whatever is good for the government should automatically be good for the citizens to do. If the government wants to use hi-res cameras to surveil a city all day long, then anybody else should be able to do so too. If the government wants to arm drones, then I should be able to arm my own drones.

I don't think that's an answer, but I think it will work for a decade or two -- hopefully long enough for us to develop workable policies.

You say "government" and "citizen".

You need 3 groups: government, private citizen, and business.

Businesses are just groups of private citizens.

If that were true, there would be no point in incorporating! Businesses are very distinct from groups of private citizens.

> If the government wants to arm drones, then I should be able to arm my own drones.

Surely you jest. Do you honestly think this is a valid line of reasoning?

I would think this fits from a second amendment frame of mind.

If by government they mean civilian government/law enforcement, and excluding military, then that's a very valid line of reasoning. Other than machine guns manufactured after 1986, which ban is likely unconstitutional(1), on a federal level in the US there's no arms law enforcement can have that civilians not employed in LE can't also own with the proper paperwork.

(1)The most recent case I know that mentioned constitutionality of the machine gun ban used the circular logic that as machine guns are not currently common weapons owned and in use by civilians, because they are banned, it's not illegal to ban them. Seeing as how machine guns manufactured before 1986 are legal to own, and it's rather easy to /illegally/ convert a rifle to full auto, the ban really does nothing of use other than make holders of pre-1986 guns wealthy. Since there's a small number of people who could afford the ammo to shoot full auto other than as a novelty, no one cares enough to challenge the ban seriously.

I think this would fall under the right to bare arms, would it not. There's nothing about the second amendment that restricts arms to only those you can carry. At the end of the day, the 2nd amendment was put in place as the last line of defense against a tyrannical government. Given that motivation, would it not make sense that citizens should have at least some degree of parity with the US government. Basically enough parity on an individual level that the citizens of a country in aggregate could challenge an unjust government. I emphasized in aggregate since that is the language that ensures that one individual citizen off his rocker cannot challenge a government that he alone thinks is tyrannical. i.e. one individual can't have nuclear weaponry or advanced fighter or bomber jets or tanks, because those types of weaponry allows one citizen a disproportionate impact if they choose to bare and use their arms before drumming up consensus with fellow citizens that feel the same.

If the government can arm drones, I think citizens should have the right to arm drones up to some set quantity, like 2-4 drones. Citizens should also have the right to maintain anti-drone technology capable of shooting down any drones above their property.

You may think I'm a right-wing nut after reading that statement, but actually I spent enough time in China, especially the western part to get a feel for what happens where there is an extreme asymmetry in armaments between a government and its citizens. The Chinese province XinJiang feels like an occupied country. I imagine that Tibet felt the like an occupied country as well until the rail lines were built enabling ethnic cleansing by dilution, making the occupation less obvious than it still is in XinJiang.

In the Second Amendment, you are correct -- there is nothing limiting you to arms that you can carry. Since then, however, the Supreme Court has, on more than one occasion, defined "arms" to mean "man portable arms".

I believe this narrow definition (and FAA monitored airspace) that would prevent you from owning your own drone (even if you could build it), and is what keeps us from owning missiles, rocket launchers (even though many are in fact man-portable), etc., despite the fact that the Revolutionary War was won with cannons and ships that formed our militia and navy, all provided by the citizenry at the time.

Does this line of logic extend to gun control? (not trolling, genuinely curious)

Sadly it's not a war on drone use by any level of government, only individuals.

I suspect government drones will get federal protection if people try to use them as skeet targets when they fly over their property.

Countdown to when the public starts to say "oh well, what can you do, we need to be safe" (ala TSA).

Their comfortable viewing distance is something like 12,000 feet, which is almost 3 miles up. You're not likely to have anybody shooting at them because they'll never see them.

That said, I agree that people will accept their new passengerless overlords, and it'll probably start in New York.

This is a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that the Texas legislature really can't stop. Cameras are becoming more and more ubiquitous with or without drones.

Even with the law there's nothing stopping someone from posting illegally captured photos anonymously. The hobbyists will be ones that feel the impact of the law and the more clandestine drone operators that they aim to prevent will continue unabated.

I'm sure that in the not so distant future when any police officer can launch a drone all of these privacy worries will go right out the window.

In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." The good news here is that thanks to technology, our future is definitely going to be a bright place for all of us whether we like it or not.

I pretty much agree with you, but having seen the demo of the drone, there's a pretty big difference between a camera on every street corner, and a camera flying 3 miles up in the sky that you can't possibly see, but that is able to watch, draw boxes around and track every moving object in a small city.

Again, I don't exactly know where the line is or should be drawn, but the 1.8Gigapixel camera on those drones are just super creepy.

Wow, how disappointing. Just another lesson demonstrating that if you hear about a law being passed and it sounds good (or bad), it's really just motivated by the interests of those with the most power.

For anyone else who was curious about the drone photographing an environmental violation, here's the denouement and the company's side of the story. In short, the Ondruseks state that an unmaintained government-controlled sewer pipe was responsible for the leak.

Your reaction to this story will depend on whether you believe businessmen are mustache-twirlers who pollute rivers...or whether you believe that the kind of government that leaves potholes unfilled for years might jump into action to shift blame and point fingers rather than accept responsibility. From my POV, there doesn't seem to be much motive to intentionally dumping blood into a river rather than down a sewer line, so I kind of think the Ondruseks might be telling the truth.

http://www.suasnews.com/2012/12/20401/columbia-packing-co-in...

  A Dallas County grand jury returned several indictments on
  Wednesday against an Oak Cliff meat packing company 
  accused of dumping animal blood in a creek that flows into 
  the Trinity River.

  Columbia Packing Company and its owner, Joe Ondrusek, 
  face twelve indictments for water pollution.

  If found guilty, the company could pay fines between
  $6,000 and $1.5 million. Ondrusek himself could get 
  five years in prison and fined up to $100,000 for each 
  count.

  The grand jury also found evidence that the company, 
  Joe Ondrusek and family member Donny Ondrusek tampered 
  with physical evidence and returned six counts against 
  them. The company could face more fines, and the Ondruseks 
  could face up to 10 years in prison and $10,000 
  for each charge.

  Neighbors near the plant on 11th Street had long 
  complained about noxious fumes and other problems from the 
  meat packers. But investigators didn’t get involved until 
  a remote-controlled toy enthusiast happened to affix a 
  video camera to an RC aircraft and videotape 
  gallons of what appeared to be blood gushing down the 
  river.

  Officials from the Dallas County Health Department, Texas 
  Environmental Crimes Task Force, Texas Commission on 
  Environmental Quality and Environmental Protection Agency 
  took photos and tested emissions.

  Weeks of investigation found the plant discharged pigs’ 
  blood into Cedar Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River. 
  In January 2012, the company issued a statement saying it 
  would never knowingly pollute the environment.

  The plant shut down operations a few months later.

http://keranews.org/post/oak-cliff-columbia-packing-tells-pi...

  WHAT HAPPENED

  On Thursday, January 19, 2012, approximately 50  
  individuals from various governmental agencies executed 
  a search warrant at our plant. The search warrant accused 
  Columbia Packing of intentionally dumping waste into the 
  creek located a couple of hundred yards behind our plant.

  Let me be very clear: Columbia Packing did not and has not 
  intentionally or knowingly polluted or illegally dumped 
  hazardous materials. Our sewer line ties into a City of 
  Dallas sewer main. It does NOT dump into the creek as has 
  been alleged.

  There was a clog in the sewer line near a cleanout valve.  
  When water was used (i.e. washing down after production), 
  the sewer line was backing up causing water to come out an 
  overflow/vent pipe.  The city of Dallas apparently knew 
  there was a problem on December 9th, but allowed it to 
  continue and did not notify us until 41 days later when 
  government agencies served search warrants.

  Two days before the warrants were served, a Columbia lawn 
  mowing crew discovered the sewer overflow. We immediately 
  called a plumber and took swift action to begin stopping 
  the overflow. The clog was cleared and the line was open 
  and running cleanly into the city’s sewer main in less 
  than 24 hours.

  If the city had contacted us on December 9th, the problem 
  would have been fixed the same day. Instead, the city 
  knowingly allowed this overflow to continue for 41 days.  
  Government officials did something my family never would 
  have done- they allowed products to contaminate the 
  Trinity River for more than a month without taking 
  corrective action. The City has full access to our 
  property at all times to test the sewer line. At any time, 
  officials could have entered our property to find the 
  source of the overflow.

  There is no cross connection between our sewer line and 
  storm water. The City has now dye-tested and camera 
  inspected our sewer lines, and our sewer line is clear and 
  goes to the city sewer main.  The city maintains a box on 
  our sewer line that has for years monitored the amount of 
  waste water going through the line and the substances 
  contained in the waste water.  The city monitors this 
  locked box on its own schedule.

  When the City searched our property they found 18 possible 
  code violations. Within 30 days we addressed and repaired 
  each issue the City brought to our attention. Keep in 
  mind, our Oak Cliff facility has been in operation since 
  the early 1930’s, and the City of Dallas has never cited us 
  for any violations in the past.

  There was a clog in the sewer line near a cleanout valve.

This sounds like the cleanout is on the sewer customer's property.

  The City has full access to our property at all times to 
  test the sewer line. At any time, officials could have 
  entered our property to find the source of the overflow.

Not in Texas, they don't. The city water/sewer department or sewage treatment company (or district) does not have right of entry into a property unless invited by the subscriber. The subscriber has the duty to ensure that the equipment on his or her property is functioning as designed. That is why laws requiring water sprinkler backflow valves are enforced at the junction between the city's water pipe and the customer's water pipe. The city or supply company shut off the valve on their side of the pipe. Property demarcation is a huge thing in Texas.

  The city of Dallas apparently knew 
  there was a problem on December 9th, but allowed it to 
  continue and did not notify us until 41 days later when 
  government agencies served search warrants.

This I can believe (I mean, lolcityofdallas amirite?) but it does not absolve the property owner of liability for failure to maintain the sanitary sewer connection on his property.

  The city maintains a box on our sewer line that has for 
  years monitored the amount of waste water going through 
  the line and the substances contained in the waste 
  water.  The city monitors this locked box on its own 
  schedule.

And when your sewer bill was half of what it should be, this didn't raise any eyebrows? If there's one thing Dallas Water Utilities does shockingly well, it's collect money from ratepayers.

I think that sending in the mod squad and filing charges was overkill. The Trinity has been used and abused for decades and people are just now trying to clean it up, so it doesn't shock me that TCEQ and Dallas dropped the hammer on this fellow.

>Your reaction to this story will depend on whether you believe businessmen are mustache-twirlers who pollute rivers...or whether you believe that the kind of government that leaves potholes unfilled for years might jump into action to shift blame and point fingers rather than accept responsibility.

Experience has taught me to trust neither. The city's failure to fix a valve doesn't absolve a party's responsibility to not pollute. Was the valve clogged? Or was it spec'd too small to begin with? The town I live in has a plant (not a meat packer) that has the same problem, with the same result.

I'm loving the typical Texas politician response too. Noticed a business breaking the law? Make noticing things like that a crime!

I'd guess the aim is to make drones illegal, rather than actually prevent them from flying (ie. make the law, but don't enforce it). At zero cost to the state, this will mean any evidence gathered by a civilian drone will be illegally obtained and so inadmissible in court.

What if I took a photo of someone on the ground on their own private property? That's not a crime right?

So whats the difference if I take a photo not from the ground? It suddenly becomes illegal?

It's a crime if you photograph them where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy [1]. That's generally easy to interpret for normal (ground) photography. But if I'm in my fenced backyard sunbathing nude and your drone photographs me, that could be up for debate/discussion.

It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

1. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2...

And I was hoping for a small surface to air missile system :)

I'm considering spending some time on an anti drone technology startup. I have some ideas.

The right call for the wrong reasons

This is a great and very necessary law.

Do you want fotage of your 3 year old playing in an inflated pool in your back yard to end up on pedo.net because you didn't put a cammo net over your back yard?

Parrot drones are super fun, but it isn't hard to play with them responsibly.

> Do you want fotage of your 3 year old playing in an inflated pool in your back yard to end up on pedo.net because you didn't put a cammo net over your back yard?

Where does one acquire such an extreme level of paranoia? I mean, seriously...

Follow politics close enough, each step the police gets better technology and so what used to be ok, like the police beeing able to follow a suspect ends up meaning that they can slap a cheap GPS tracker on any car, all without a warrent.

Of course it is admissible evidence when the police see you sell heroin on the street, it is a little different when that gets changed intro a drone that can watch entire neighborhoods from the air.

And when the police gets those rights, so will other people.

One word: paparazzi. They've rented helicopters to get pictures of weddings. Cheap and easy drones? They'll be hovering over every starlet's swimming pool attempting to get bikini pics. Private graveyard service? No worries, 10 drones hovering 10 feet above to capture the video of the grieving widow. What's to keep people from using drones to hover outside Donald Trump's windows 24/7 streaming views of his living room?

Sure, your average joe nobody is not likely to be targeted, but as the cost to acquire aerial video goes from $x,xxx an hour for a helicopter, to $x/hr for a drone, it will be used far more widely. In the past, it was prohibitively expensive and time consuming to do surveillance work. Now a smart phone with 4G tied to a balloon can stream HD feeds.

In the past, you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage of your home. If drones can take high resolution photos (and video) from the air, this becomes null and void. I personally would prefer we have laws to protect privacy instead being forced to completely enclose all outdoor pools or risk showing up on poolperv.com's drone feeds. (Per my reading, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 would not ban bathing suit video)

It's likely a side effect of some inner conflict which we can't see.

> Where does one acquire such an extreme level of paranoia? I mean, seriously...

Reddit, from before they deleted Violentacrez's subreddits.

I'm pretty sure your example is illegal under current laws. Photographing someone from afar doesn't require a drone. Replace "drone" with "telephoto lens" and you'll still draw the ire of law enforcement if you go around taking pictures of children in their back yards.

More importantly, "think of the children" is a common justification for bad laws. Human minds tend to give too much weight to low-probability stories. Nobody freaks out about the thousands of children who die every year from car accidents, but if a technology has the potential to take pictures of children surreptitiously they call for bans.

Drones are just like cars: people are going to be harmed by them, but the benefits are almost certainly greater than the costs. And that's before you consider how many applications for drones that we haven't yet thought of.

Fuck you. If you can come up with a problem that needs a law to protect people, you can come up with an example that doesn't consist of "Oh won't somebody think of the children"

Next up camera on a balloon!

Already there; they are called aerostats.

I'm fine with citizens having drones but not the government.

I agree completely, but it takes the government paying a private entity to do surveillance. Far fetched, but still plausible

Why is that far fetched? It's how roads and prisons are managed.

Not sure if the latter is a good example, since the prison industry is one of the most corrupt in the country.

Neither are meant to be good examples. The outsourcing of prisons, in particular, should seem to be a far-fetched concept that nevertheless occurs regularly. I don't see the outsourcing of domestic surveillance to be any more far-fetched.

Also, a very great deal of sensitive government IT operations are outsourced to contractors and vendors and the like.

> Law enforcement officers could only use drones while executing a search warrant or if they had probable cause to believe someone is committing a felony, and firefighters can only use drones for fighting fire or to rescue a person whose life is “in imminent danger.” Texas’ border-patrolling Predator drones are exempt within 25 miles of the Mexican border. There are additional penalties for possession, display or distribution of data captured by an illegally flown drone. Gooden said the goal is to protect Texans’ privacy.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/privacy-and...

The "probable cause" exemption is bullshit. If you have probable cause, get a warrant.

No patrols, no police drone leaves the ground without a warrant targeting a specific person or group.

Depending on the details, the "probable cause that someone is committing a felony" exemption is common to law enforcement. Exigent circumstances. If a police officer hears signs of a struggle in your house, he doesn't have to get a judge to sign a warrant before he kicks the door down.

But the way that gets used seems to be the officer somehow smells pot on every damn person they want to violate.

It's interesting you bring that up, as whether or not a drug-sniffing dog's alert is considered grounds for determining probable cause was recently tested by the Supreme Court.

I won't bore you with the full explanation of who won or why, but what I found interesting is that the dog's past performance comes in to play, the results of their testing, time in the field, etc. Also, the k-9 (human) officers are supposed to keep a record of their results to be provided should this come into question (which raises all sorts of things about false positives, false negatives, etc., due to ignored reporting of incidents that didn't otherwise generate paperwork).

I'm wondering now if there shouldn't be some similar standard of proof for police officers. I've never had the "smells like pot in there" pulled on me for any reason, but I almost hope that it happens at some point so that I can poll the officer's record to see how many times he's used that line as probable cause and what the feasibility of that is.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/this-dog-can-send-you-...

That's why I said "no patrols." A drone shouldn't just be flying around waiting to see something. It should be sent only after there is a warrant.

Seems as though the title is not specific enough. It should read "Texas Businesses Declare War on Drones".

Yet another case of moneyed interests exerting direct control over the proletariat's freedoms. Yay Fascism.

I love my state...

I didn't even realize you could get down-voted on here ha. Well, sorry for my comment, I guess?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com