Seattle Man Hovers Drone Over a Family’s House for ‘Research’
betabeat.com
betabeat.com
In Florida v. Riley, from the US Supreme court, it was ruled that police did not need a warrant to hover over someone's house with a helicopter to peer into the roof of a greenhouse to check for marijuana.
There's a lot that maybe we shouldn't do but is completely legal anyway.
Something being in plain sight is not a sufficient condition for legally photographing it. You cannot, for example, point a camera into your neighbor's bedroom, photograph the results, and distribute it on the internet, even if, say, the camera was on public sidewalks.
Yeah, it's possible to predict a poor outcome from something like this. It's possible to predict a poor outcome from anything. It all depends on how much fear you want to live with.
Justin's reporting lacks the hyperbolic nature of TV news, and keeps me on top of things that are actually relevant to me. Plus, he's just a stand-up guy.
edit: crap, CHS is down. I wonder if that's my fault, or the Atlantic and BetaBeat articles. Here's a cached version from yesterday: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:P3SuMBN...
I'm on the lookout for this drone guy, btw.
Sounds like some pretty irresponsible "research".
Even if the intent is utterly benign, it's pretty easy to see how this could end badly. I'd say drone-man lucked out if this is how it all went down.
Even if he was trying to bring the issue to light... there has got to be better ways then potentially getting your ass kicked by strangers.
Then again, it could be some dude who's discovered that he can remotely perv on people, in which case, this is still a general success, as it draws attention to the problem of drone surveillance.
People in the area are pretty sensitive to the concept especially considering the local police department's recent effort to use patrol drones (the program was recently cancelled).
Here's a picture of my coworkers inside the office that I flew up to scope out -- http://i.imgur.com/sSpxQAL.jpg
Actually, good point! On the bright side, this seems like a great business opportunity.
[1] http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/10/31/who-is-seatt...
The home owner could have dones his part by destroying the drone (I'd prefer a shotgun but if it really was that close simply shooting a net at it would have worked) such that the "researcher" would suffer a property loss which could then give him action to sue.
Then we could have the whole thing walk through the court system and draw out the folks who are pushing behind the scenes because they would not want case law on the books that made done use over private property ruled illegal or property owners destroying drones over their property ruled legal.
I find myself unsurprised that this guy was probably wearing Google Glasses...
Firstly, planes and helicopters are a lot harder to fly. So there is a skill barrier that puts most people off.
Secondly, these drones are very stable. Couple that with now cheap HD corrected cameras, and any one can literally spy right in to your daughter's bed room.
And this is the real shit of life right now. Almost everything fun and cool is also threat to privacy and freedom, as much as it protects privacy and freedom.
The game has changed. Even a year ago my drones were "cool". People loved to see them and we fascinated by them. Today, they fear them, they are suspicious of them, and now my motives get questioned.
> Harriman seeks to avoid government ownership of the Moon. As it passes directly overhead only in a narrow band north and south of the equator, he uses a legal principle that states that property rights extend to infinity above a land parcel. On that basis, Mexico, Central and parts of South America, and other countries in those latitudes around the world, have a claim on the Moon. The United States also has a claim due to Florida and Texas. By arranging for many countries to assert their rights Harriman persuades the United Nations to, as a compromise, assign management of the Moon to his company.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/the-man-who-sells-...
ETA: Did some more research and found a claim that only nine states have peeping Tom laws. Am surprised.
EDIT: Yes, downvote me to oblivion because I pointed out this post is in blatant violation of HN rules:
Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter.
The content is exactly the same as The Atlantic article. The Atlantic is not where the incident was first reported, but it is the source of all the legal analysis and commentary on the issue.