Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas Declares War on Drones

robots.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Texas Declares War on Drones

#31

Post by natrius »

alan_cx wrote: post #28
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #27

As both a libertarian and tech junkie, I have serious concerns about the use of drone surveillance and am excited to see the technology develop. The best I can figure, what's needed is parity in drone use. That is, whatever is good for the government should automatically be good for the citizens to do. If the government wants to use hi-res cameras to surveil a city all day long, then anybody else should be able to do…

You say "government" and "citizen". You need 3 groups: government, private citizen, and business.

Businesses are just groups of private citizens.

Re: Texas Declares War on Drones

#33

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

temphn wrote: post #17

For anyone else who was curious about the drone photographing an environmental violation, here's the denouement and the company's side of the story. In short, the Ondruseks state that an unmaintained government-controlled sewer pipe was responsible for the leak. Your reaction to this story will depend on whether you believe businessmen are mustache-twirlers who pollute rivers...or whether you believe that the kind of…

>Your reaction to this story will depend on whether you believe businessmen are mustache-twirlers who pollute rivers...or whether you believe that the kind of government that leaves potholes unfilled for years might jump into action to shift blame and point fingers rather than accept responsibility.

Experience has taught me to trust neither. The city's failure to fix a valve doesn't absolve a party's responsibility to not pollute. Was the valve clogged? Or was it spec'd too small to begin with? The town I live in has a plant (not a meat packer) that has the same problem, with the same result.

I'm loving the typical Texas politician response too. Noticed a business breaking the law? Make noticing things like that a crime!

Re: Texas Declares War on Drones

#34

Post by d23 »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #27

As both a libertarian and tech junkie, I have serious concerns about the use of drone surveillance and am excited to see the technology develop. The best I can figure, what's needed is parity in drone use. That is, whatever is good for the government should automatically be good for the citizens to do. If the government wants to use hi-res cameras to surveil a city all day long, then anybody else should be able to do…

> If the government wants to arm drones, then I should be able to arm my own drones.

Surely you jest. Do you honestly think this is a valid line of reasoning?

Re: Texas Declares War on Drones

#35

Post by eshvk »

d23 wrote: post #34
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #27

As both a libertarian and tech junkie, I have serious concerns about the use of drone surveillance and am excited to see the technology develop. The best I can figure, what's needed is parity in drone use. That is, whatever is good for the government should automatically be good for the citizens to do. If the government wants to use hi-res cameras to surveil a city all day long, then anybody else should be able to do…

> If the government wants to arm drones, then I should be able to arm my own drones. Surely you jest. Do you honestly think this is a valid line of reasoning?

I would think this fits from a second amendment frame of mind.

Re: Texas Declares War on Drones

#36

Post by jmccree »

jlgreco wrote: post #21
tomjen3 wrote: post #20

This is a great and very necessary law. Do you want fotage of your 3 year old playing in an inflated pool in your back yard to end up on pedo.net because you didn't put a cammo net over your back yard? Parrot drones are super fun, but it isn't hard to play with them responsibly.

> Do you want fotage of your 3 year old playing in an inflated pool in your back yard to end up on pedo.net because you didn't put a cammo net over your back yard? Where does one acquire such an extreme level of paranoia? I mean, seriously...

One word: paparazzi. They've rented helicopters to get pictures of weddings. Cheap and easy drones? They'll be hovering over every starlet's swimming pool attempting to get bikini pics. Private graveyard service? No worries, 10 drones hovering 10 feet above to capture the video of the grieving widow. What's to keep people from using drones to hover outside Donald Trump's windows 24/7 streaming views of his living room?

Sure, your average joe nobody is not likely to be targeted, but as the cost to acquire aerial video goes from $x,xxx an hour for a helicopter, to $x/hr for a drone, it will be used far more widely. In the past, it was prohibitively expensive and time consuming to do surveillance work. Now a smart phone with 4G tied to a balloon can stream HD feeds.

In the past, you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage of your home. If drones can take high resolution photos (and video) from the air, this becomes null and void. I personally would prefer we have laws to protect privacy instead being forced to completely enclose all outdoor pools or risk showing up on poolperv.com's drone feeds. (Per my reading, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 would not ban bathing suit video)

Re: Texas Declares War on Drones

#37

Post by sp332 »

natrius wrote: post #31
alan_cx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "government" and "citizen". You need 3 groups: government, private citizen, and business.

Businesses are just groups of private citizens.

If that were true, there would be no point in incorporating! Businesses are very distinct from groups of private citizens.

Re: Texas Declares War on Drones

#38

Post by DenisM »

jlgreco wrote: post #21
tomjen3 wrote: post #20

This is a great and very necessary law. Do you want fotage of your 3 year old playing in an inflated pool in your back yard to end up on pedo.net because you didn't put a cammo net over your back yard? Parrot drones are super fun, but it isn't hard to play with them responsibly.

> Do you want fotage of your 3 year old playing in an inflated pool in your back yard to end up on pedo.net because you didn't put a cammo net over your back yard? Where does one acquire such an extreme level of paranoia? I mean, seriously...

It's likely a side effect of some inner conflict which we can't see.

Re: Texas Declares War on Drones

#39

Post by jasonwocky »

largesse wrote: post #14
hadronzoo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Law enforcement officers could only use drones while executing a search warrant or if they had probable cause to believe someone is committing a felony, and firefighters can only use drones for fighting fire or to rescue a person whose life is “in imminent danger.” Texas’ border-patrolling Predator drones are exempt within 25 miles of the Mexican border. There are additional penalties for possession, display or dis…

The "probable cause" exemption is bullshit. If you have probable cause, get a warrant. No patrols, no police drone leaves the ground without a warrant targeting a specific person or group.

Depending on the details, the "probable cause that someone is committing a felony" exemption is common to law enforcement. Exigent circumstances. If a police officer hears signs of a struggle in your house, he doesn't have to get a judge to sign a warrant before he kicks the door down.

Re: Texas Declares War on Drones

#40

Post by jmccree »

d23 wrote: post #34
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #27

As both a libertarian and tech junkie, I have serious concerns about the use of drone surveillance and am excited to see the technology develop. The best I can figure, what's needed is parity in drone use. That is, whatever is good for the government should automatically be good for the citizens to do. If the government wants to use hi-res cameras to surveil a city all day long, then anybody else should be able to do…

> If the government wants to arm drones, then I should be able to arm my own drones. Surely you jest. Do you honestly think this is a valid line of reasoning?

If by government they mean civilian government/law enforcement, and excluding military, then that's a very valid line of reasoning. Other than machine guns manufactured after 1986, which ban is likely unconstitutional(1), on a federal level in the US there's no arms law enforcement can have that civilians not employed in LE can't also own with the proper paperwork.

(1)The most recent case I know that mentioned constitutionality of the machine gun ban used the circular logic that as machine guns are not currently common weapons owned and in use by civilians, because they are banned, it's not illegal to ban them. Seeing as how machine guns manufactured before 1986 are legal to own, and it's rather easy to /illegally/ convert a rifle to full auto, the ban really does nothing of use other than make holders of pre-1986 guns wealthy. Since there's a small number of people who could afford the ammo to shoot full auto other than as a novelty, no one cares enough to challenge the ban seriously.

Post reply on HN