111–120 of 353 posts
Woodpeckers, hummingbirds, geese and ducks flying over between the various lakes. Losing out on that just so Amazon can make more money (not to mention potentially spy on us even more effectively) would be tragic
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So more than once a month an idiot is in the news for shooting at a drone. Depending on where you live, they might even be neighbors of yours. Something showing up every month is pretty damn frequent, especially when it leaks into national news and always grabs headlines, yet idiots still do it. I mean if a plane fell out of the sky once a month, is that frequently? What about if your bank blocked access to your acco…
Your strained analogy would actually be if any bank blocked one account from all bank accounts once a month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> shouldnt be here You'll want to examine this a bit more closely: is the aircraft in a location it should not be? Above your house is likely to be a valid place for a drone, whether you like it or not. Exceptions are for things like airports (other air traffic) and sporting events (large crowds). So when you use a net to capture the drone out of the sky, you are not collecting it from its location of abandonment on…
Surely that must depend on the altitude the drone is flying at. Surely I can use a net to capture a drone flying 8 feet above the ground in my backyard.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth, shooting at aircraft (including drones) is a federal offense, and the FAA takes that one pretty seriously. Drones also have cameras.
If drones have cameras and are hovering above someone's property I'd argue that's an extra incentive to the property owners to do something about it... unless we're saying it's perfectly legal to spy on anyone's property from above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth, shooting at aircraft (including drones) is a federal offense, and the FAA takes that one pretty seriously. Drones also have cameras.
If drones have cameras and are hovering above someone's property I'd argue that's an extra incentive to the property owners to do something about it... unless we're saying it's perfectly legal to spy on anyone's property from above.
Has a very easy answer in the US: No. You do not own your airspace. The FAA owns your airspace. You can build a tall structure (subject to local laws). But anything above that is outside your control. --- This article, however, is about Ireland.
This kinda begs the question of what is meant by "airspace." If the term means a geometric volume that is generally occupied by materials in a gaseous state, then does the FAA own the airspace within one's home? Does the FAA control how cars drive down the airspace of a road? No, that is absurd.
The common use of aircraft smaller than humans and capable of performing navigation faster than humans is expanding a previously relatively stable boundary of what Federal law and rules call "navigable airspace." Thus, I think it is incorrect to say "The FAA owns your airspace." since the FAA explicitly does not control airspace below a certain altitude over most people's houses.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If drones have cameras and are hovering above someone's property I'd argue that's an extra incentive to the property owners to do something about it... unless we're saying it's perfectly legal to spy on anyone's property from above.
Most localities have laws against invading someone’s privacy. There don’t need to be special laws for every specific type of surveillance.