Who will banish spy-cam drones from US skies? The FAA doesn't want to do it. EPIC disagrees Privacy advocates are pressing the US Federal Aviation Administration to ground creepy peeping-tom drones. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a legal challenge [PDF] on Tuesday over what it says is a lack of privacy protections in the FAA's latest private drone rules. The regulator has started enforcing …
If you are taking photos from a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft, the CAA, FAA, ASA, and all the other aviation-based TLAs have no jurisdiction over that, so why are drones any different? It's the act of taking the photo that's the issue here, not the platform on which the camera is mounted. The same situation arises if someone has a telephoto lens from a neighbouring apartment building or on a hillside.
Shirley, there are rules covering privacy already.
Exactly. You don't expect the DVLA (Vehicle licensing authority in the USA) to prosecute car drivers for other misbehavior, such as shagging in their car or following somebody around and photographing them - that is for the police to prosecute if the driver is breaking a privacy or public behavior law.
Same goes for aircraft of all types: the CAA and FDA are responsible for licensing and aircraft safety issues, not for prosecuting other types of misbehavior. For example, in the UK if you fly an 8 kg drone within 50m of a spectator that would be a matter for the CAA because doing it breaks ANO rules, but using the same drone with a telephoto lens to photograph the same person inside his house from 100m away is a privacy issue that would be handled by the police, not the CAA, because at that distance you're outside the ANO limits for flying close to people or buildings.
Its a government agency refusing to extend its mission and stick its fingers in more pies... How often does that happen?
Admittedly its probably because they recognise that taking on drone regulation would be not so much a can of worms as a whole tanker load of vicious flesh eating worms with razor sharp teeth but still...
Works for me. I've bagged four of the bastards. Cops have been called. I'm over 1500 yards from the nearest occupied dwelling not owned by myself, and outside city limits, so I'm allowed to discharge firearms. I'm also allowed to protect my privacy. The law can't find anything to charge me with, so I'll continue shooting them down.
Oddly enough, if they were to ask nicely, I'd allow them onto the property ;-)
Pretty sure it was on France 24 I saw this yesterday. They are training a very large species of eagle to attack drones. I was half-watching while on the computer so missed the specific intended usage but think it was for large events such as around stadiums -- can't remember airports being mentioned but that would seem to be another. The training involved edible drone shapes to condition them to see drones as food. Beware the (reaper) raptor!
They are training a very large species of eagle to attack drones.
Sticking one's finger into a rotating propeller or rotor can be a little painful, especially if it's running flat out.
How long will it take a raptor to figure out that sticking either a beak (near its eyes) or a talon (near its feet) into the same prop/rotor isn't a way to lasting happiness, despite what its handler wants it to do.
Fortunately, penguins are never going to intercept drones.
Most places have laws against shooting stuff down, or shooting in city limits period, but since drones communicate using public airwaves that you can use too, there's nothing stopping you from jamming the frequency it is using so the operator loses control and it crashes.
And while the drone owner will claim he wasn't spying on your daughter undressing because you can't prove it, you can claim you didn't jam his drone and cause it to crash because he can't prove it.
Or better yet, since most drones probably have little or no security, a device that could recognize the signals being broadcast to/from the drone to determine its type and allow you to simply take it over - since you'd be closer to it than its operator - would allow you to crash it into your pool to make sure it never flies again, or into the brand new car of the lawyer down the street who will happily sue the drone owner for enough money he gives up his peeping tom hobby.
"...but since drones communicate using public airwaves that you can use too, there's nothing stopping you from jamming the frequency it is using so the operator loses control and it crashes."
Actually, that isn't true - at least not in the US. The FCC has some pretty clear prohibitions on jamming. For example this and also this so, jamming RF is just as illegal as the snooping you are trying to stop.
Sorry, that would violate FCC regulations. You are interfering with another device on purpose. If they charge that you interred with the drone, searched your house, and found a device capable of it, you could be in significant trouble.
I think what they want the FAA to do is declare that you can't operate drones above other people's property (up to a certain altitude) without those people's permission. That is well within the FAA's scope of activities. It would also let me shoot them down, since I believe the FAA has stated that it is against the law to shoot at an aircraft even if it is on your property and snooping on you. I see a new market in short-range anti-drone weapons (potato cannons modified to shoot hooked nets?).
"searched your house"
Unlikely unless legal probable cause for a search warrant and even then, if your "controller" is for your own unit they would never be able to prove you interfered with another unit... no case... no probable cause...no search
Helicopters because....
Anti-drone drones - the Robot Wars of the Skies!
There used to be a sport where two or more people would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with model "aircraft" - normally little more than a plank with an engine and a small fin - at the end of (fairly long) bits of line and with ribbons dangling off the back; the winner was the one who managed to chop off his opponent(s)'s ribbon.
So I propose a drone with a very short range and a couple of metres of thick fishing line in an easy-release mount to fly above the spying drone and dangle the fishing line into the rotors - the short range means it can only be used to protect a relatively small area (so no 'fishing expeditions') and the easy-break mount means you only need to replace the fishing line if some snooping... [i]person[/i] flies over your property...
not.known@this.adress:
There used to be a sport where two or more people would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with model "aircraft" - normally little more than a plank with an engine and a small fin - at the end of (fairly long) bits of line and with ribbons dangling off the back; the winner was the one who managed to chop off his opponent(s)'s ribbon.
Still exists actually. It's FAI model flying class F2D (also known as Control Line Combat) and there is still a crowd of people involved in the sport. Though like a lot of model aircraft classes it seems to be greying out and dying out as other, "more exiting" forms of model flying become cheaper and easier to enter. See for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVcW8DZH-94
Look at this. https://epic.org/news/2016/default.html
EPIC (EFF's D.C. spinoff) been harping on this issue for some time, raising awareness, suing the FAA, etc. But you'd never know it. They're basically saying the right things but politicians aren't listening to them. Weak-ass lobbying.
seems for every issue there are a dozen organizations "raising awareness" and making careers out of needing donations.
How many separately funded, separately managed organizations do we need for electronic privacy? Make more sense to send more to the EFF than to split the effort across two organizations vying for relevancy.
Its like having HUNDREDS of HIV/AIDS advocacy groups all working to "raise awareness". How many dozen separate youtube videos per week makes a difference that one or two from a small handful of well funded well organized organizations could do?
More focus on "action" and less on "awareness" for ALL social issues would be nice too. Time to get to the dirty, hard, "boring", long term work for positive change, and less fun time on social media campaigns and the occasional showy protest.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
