i had a colleague i had a lot of disagreements with when i was a lobbyist – one of their parents was a well known elected official, and so they’d do this thing where they’d repeat what others said in a meeting and people would tell them it’s a good idea. (it was not endearing at all and i suspect them running around k street like they’re the only person in the district with a famous relative played a part in them not being re-elected)
anyways, one of the few times we didn’t do that dance was when we were discussing the NGO’s thoughts on delivery robots. one of the lawyers gave a nice talk about the faa and noise and privacy laws and roe v wade (RIP) and then asked for thoughts on what restrictions these things should have
and i, as was my custom, decided to be flippant and declared “if i can shoot it down like skeet it’s too low” and turned my laptop around to display a photo of ron swanson holding a drone
i expected to get yet another eye roll and dressing down but princess [REDACTED RURAL STATE] ended up agreeing – pointed out the FAA has so few investigators that if it became common to shoot them down the law is basically unenforcable, especially paired with the strain on the system everyone charged for skeeting them would place if they all demanded a jury trial.
(once you get “out in the county” there’s a LOT of people with shotguns who don’t take kindly to trespassers)
With two minutes remaining, the Deliverator drone overrode height protocols. Trading lift for speed, it raced on the deck. Avoiding gun owner property, it jinked a path through safe airspace. Rounding an old oak tree, it had a straight path to … a new amateur radio antenna mast. “Fuck!”, the drone signaled.
And the fact that it spent so much time over his house that he was able to do so puts a bit of doubt on the idea it was in transit. Seems like it was holding position over his property and he has a pretty good argument that it was functionally surveilling him.
His only crime here should be firing a weapon in a populated area. It should not be for disabling a drone over his house.
Which is more likely?
• The drone was making a delivery within perhaps 50 yards and had slowed down to analyze the scene to identify the appropriate and optimum landing zone
• Wally World was surveilling Florida Man
“air rights”? pffft – in Nevada, we don’t even own the right to the rain that falls on our homes. rain barrels and other types of rain collection are illegal.
If it’s figuring it’s shit out, it can do so over public land like a road (which it should probably use anyway at a low height like 75 feet). Just like a delivery driver who is figuring out where to go next, pull over somewhere you aren’t causing problems for others.
It doesn’t matter if the drone was intending to surveil the guy and his house; it’s equipped with cameras and you can bet it retains the video “for quality control”. It was surveilling him and his property in fact regardless of intent.
Just like with “self-driving” cars doing beta testing on public roads, none of us who are impacted and put at risk by these corporations have consented to being experimented upon or recorded.
Oxford dictionary: Surveil — Keep (a person or place) under surveillance; closely monitor or observe.
Wally World has no interest in Florida Man nor his property — he was not under surveillance. Any photography or videography is incidental and not the purpose of the drone.
This is the same as aerial photography for Google Map, Bing Maps, and Apple Maps, and also both government and private satellites. Sure they take photos of your property and maybe you if you happen to be outside and in the open, however, no one involved in these photographic projects gives a rats ass about you or property.
The only difference here is the drone was so low it was noticed and recognized. If it were at 500 feet AGL, there would have been no incident and this discussion would not be happening.
Also, for @RickMycroft and @Shuck , surely there’s no law against flying a big-ass kite on your own property? (Maybe with netting and razors? Maybe not?)
And
'kin hell, that’s fecking ridiculous, and against every kind of green, water-saving, sensible idea going. I’ve never heard the like.
I never thought of looking at it that way.
If you get next to no rain at all, then it all belongs to the state, no matter whether it disappears into the ground or evaporates? Dang.
Right now, in the middle of the UK, we’re looking at another four inches of water tonight because, y’know, it’s July, so English Summer.
