glassgowkiss Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 No comment! 20 years of prison for flying with a camera, or 375K fine!!!!! Don't they have some real shit to deal with? Like one of the highest unemployment rates? [video:youtube]WVN52X8-t2U Quote
bstach Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 If I scope every hold on my climb with a camera mounted on a RC chopper, and then send it, is it still considered "onsite"? Perhaps the legislature is trying to head off this controversy before it lights up the interwebs. PS Some great footage in the OP, makes me want to go out and buy one of those. (still legal in Canada as far as I know) Quote
Crux Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Most of what the guy in the video says isn't true. Just saying. Quote
rob Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Most of what the guy in the video says isn't true. Just saying. But it's in a youtube video, how can it not be true????? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Actually, it is true. I can see restricting police and other govt. use, but private citizens? That seems a bit broad brush. Oregon SB 71 Author: OR Senator Prozanski (D). He's not just some kook, either. He's the chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has won awards, etc. He gets a low (25%) rating from the OR ACLU, which is sponsoring their own drone bill that simply requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using surveillance drones. The bill was read and sent to the judiciary committee (for which Prozanski is the chairman) It has not been voted on. Edited February 25, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote
genepires Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 view bill @ http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/sb0001.dir/sb0071.intro.pdf some parts make sense. Not being able to fire bullets, attack other aircraft, hunting game, stealing other drones electronically and trying to ensure privacy. (imagine a gopro drone hovering around a occupied bathroom window) also states that you need to register the device with state police, get permission from dept of aviation if in airspace or land owner if below airspace. All rescue, police and other public agencies would still have access to the drones. Public still has access to drones too as long as they go through the red tape that exists for other forms of transportation. Really not much difference between this bill and legislation for vehicles. once you really look at it, it doesn't seem to unreasonable. It is only 2 pages. Quote
rob Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Weird, although this: 20 years of prison for flying with a camera, or 375K fine!!!!! seems to be somewhat hyperbolic. Flying a drone and taking pictures would a misdemeanor under this law, they probably don't send people to prison for 20 years for a misdemeanor -- even in oregon? Does the state even have the right to tell me I can't fly a camera around? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Having to obtain a license to fly a $50 toy seems a bit much. The concern is that drone pilots will violate others' privacy. It seems like laws restricting the unauthorized use of photo/video might be a tighter, more workable solution than to get the state involved in every RC sale. SB 71 smacks of targeting a specific industry - what used to be called an RC copter is now a DRONE, and DRONES ARE BAD, MKAY? The privacy issue is real, however, given the technology and where its going. Considering that an 8 year old can now plunk down his profits from selling his buddy's old video games on Craiglist so he take an aerial video of you and your sheep through your luv loft's skylight, post it on Youtube, Twitter it to Buzzfeed - where it will quickly migrate to FOXnews, a bit of privacy bolstering regulation seems in order. Quote
rob Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Flying an RC plane with a camera would be in the same category of misdemeanor as DUI, and harsher even than concealing an illegal switchblade. Kinda weird Quote
rob Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 "the space above the ground that is not part of airspace governed by federal law" What space is that, anyway? I thought the FAA controlled all airspace. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) As long as I can continue to launch a rocket capable of reaching space without a license, I'm good. [video:youtube]sQw_C5KLhFM Edited February 25, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote
rob Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 I'm about to take a shower, if anyone wants to come watch with their drone now is the time Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Holy shit! Edited February 25, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote
bstach Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 As long as I can continue to launch a rocket capable of reaching space without a license, I'm good. [video:youtube]sQw_C5KLhFM I'm looking for ideas for my 6 year old's science fair project. Thanks for the idea...this should get him an 'A+' Quote
ivan Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 As long as I can continue to launch a rocket capable of reaching space without a license, I'm good. [video:youtube]sQw_C5KLhFM this guy's gonnna be huuuuge in north korea Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 As long as I can continue to launch a rocket capable of reaching space without a license, I'm good. [video:youtube]sQw_C5KLhFM I'm looking for ideas for my 6 year old's science fair project. Thanks for the idea...this should get him an 'A+' If he's the payload, you'll all be famous. Quote
bstach Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 As long as I can continue to launch a rocket capable of reaching space without a license, I'm good. [video:youtube]sQw_C5KLhFM I'm looking for ideas for my 6 year old's science fair project. Thanks for the idea...this should get him an 'A+' If he's the payload, you'll all be famous. Perhaps we will do the space suit this year and the rocket next Quote
ivan Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 or just do the rocket this year (probably take some time to work the kinks out anyway) and use the family pet for the payload, sans re-entry plan? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 The Russki's 'd do the rocket first. Just sayin'. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted February 25, 2013 Author Posted February 25, 2013 The interesting bit is that it doesn't regulate RC planes and drones in general- just with the camera. There are already privacy laws in place, that regulate this manner from way in the past, so why write specific law for RC planes and drones? FAA regulates these issues from 400 ft above the ground and around the airports. The pure purpose of this law is to corner a market of a few and chosen, and prevent competition in aerial filming in the future. And btw- any non-emision regulations regarding use of air space is federal by nature. Quote
Crux Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 For several hundred years, pretty much always and everywhere the terms misdemeanor and felony are used for two mutually exclusive legal classifications of crimes, a misdemeanor is defined as a crime punishable by up to but no more then one year in jail. In the case of the "drone" bill in Oregon, the law would be a Class-B misdemeanor; therefore, statements that this law would provide for several years in jail as punishment are indeed hyperbole (as is the fine stated by the dweeb in the video as he goes apoplectic over the thought of his playtime being subject to adult rules). For a comparative evaluation of the misdemeanor classification for this law, I note that its Class-B rating provides for punishment more severe than Class-C misdemeanors (such as an ordinary traffic ticket) but less severe than a Class-A misdemeanor (such as a DUI, per ORS 813.010(5a)). In regard to the concern that existing laws should make this one unnecessary, maybe not so: Basic study of law, as it is around here, taught me that you can take photos and video of people from just about any public place, without violating any legal rights to privacy. It might be rude to do so, but it's not a crime. But small RC aircraft arguably introduce a new capacity to spy on people with a camera, literally opening up a new dimension to what is public space. I think it's this novel reach of the RC airborne camera that is of concern. That, and maybe the fact that we got guns. Seriously, if you see one of those RC cameras hovering about your daughter's window, and you've learned the invasion is entirely hands-off to law enforcement, and you have a 12-gauge Browning, whatcha gonna do? Good law encourages compliance with desired parameters of behavior, while at once promoting the effective redress of grievances. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 The law, as written, includes felonies for certain types of drone use, and explicitly outlines the 20 year/375K maximum penalties for them. Quote
rob Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 I don't actually really have a problem with the felony bits -- nobody needs the right to shoot bullets from their RC plane. It's the misdemeanor bit that upsets me -- just for taking pictures? What wrong with taking pictures? Totally over-reactive, especially the whole "we're facing an emergency!!!" language of the bill. Luddites. I read that similar bills are being proposed in California and other states. OMG I'M so worried about private drones!!!!!! Not. There already is a time-tested method for preventing people from watching me get naked -- curtains. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) This is a knee jerk reaction to an emerging technology. I'm surprised at the Bonian language from the bill's author, who otherwise seems to be have been a respected legislator with decent credentials. Emergency? That's baby talk. The trend is that anyone will be able to afford a video (or weapons) capable drone the size of a fly in the very near future. This is a clumsy attempt to bolster the social contract with legal sanctions in such a world. A better approach would be to examine privacy laws in general to ensure that they are robust enough to cover any technology that may arise. The law says nothing about piloted aerial surveillance, for example. What's the expectation of privacy in a given situation? What is the 'victims' responsibility in safeguarding their own privacy (showering with the curtain open, Facebook settings, etc). At what point does unauthorized use of pics, voice and video become a crime? What about misuse of sexting? Finally, our drone strike history is what has kicked off this craze. We need to more closely examine the human rights/legal implications of summary execution by drone, but that is a different issue, at a different level of government, than RC choppers. Oregon and other states would do well to look at their privacy protections rather than focus specifically on toy helicopters. That's a lot harder to do than licensing (what a waste of govt resources) toys, and legislators are as shy of hard stuff as anyone else. Edited February 26, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.