Yacht Pics from Drones...

The nydaiynews link posses an interesting side thought; (although one could imagine that if Svenson sat at his window with binoculars, staring into his neighbors’ apartments, there would be more of a case for an invasion of privacy).
So, the supposed artist just picked up a camera and shot, OR watched and studied EVERTHING until a face was turned away and got the picture???

I'm afraid here is citizen vs citizen where it has gone the wrong way in a court. Now, apply our drone/camera issues; Oh, I did not mean to capture your daughter's image sunbathing in the privacy of her own back yard, I didn't publicizes her face.

,, hang on,,,
PULL,,, bang, bang, bang,,
Got it,,
Oh, thought that was another skeet (or peeping tom)..

Marmot
Your finding some interesting quotes of history. Thank you for your extra time and work here.

All
I sorry I'm still standing by my redneck attitude.
You don't have to agree and that is O K.
As long as you understand my views.

Your rite but, it is sad.
Technology has to be controlled by politicians and more laws to control it.
Makes me shutter.
Another dream of an ideal, industry, hobby item or fad becoming self conscious and self positive organized; is sadly not going to happen.

This is a great tool. It offers some great views that the regular guy can not see in their lives. Birds eye views of a pond, mountain, structure.
As I commented, real estate, brokerage and even law enforcement.
Abused, this may be a high tech peeping tom issue that needs to be discussed before it gets carried away and abused.

I think on our level, were giving it a good attempt.

Cheers to all
(except that skeet over my boat)...


,, hang on,,,
PULL,,, bang, bang, bang,,
Got it,,
Oh, thought that was another skeet (or peeping tom)..

I think what it all boils down to is we are going to have to reconsider, redefine, and hopefully codify what we believe, think, or desire to be our "expectations of privacy."

Personally, I am all in favor of a flak "fence" around my property but that may be in direct opposition to another persons "right of free passage" and use of the public airspace above private property.

A boat operates in and on a public medium, just because I own and drive a boat doesn't mean I own the water around me or the air above me, it is an "open field" in that regard so as much as I might dislike the presence of a drone overhead, it is as much the operator's right to be there as mine to be on the water below. How the information gathered by the drone is used is probably going to be the dominant issue in the courts for years to come, not the drone operator's right to use the airspace or the individual's percieved "right" or "expectation" to "privacy" - whatever that means or will become in a rapidly changing social and political environment.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-who-owns-your-airspace-1431535417

I agree with you wholeheartedly. This is going to be an emerging area of law and regulation. I just hope that consensus and not extremes at either end prevails. Interesting concept you propose though - you are floating on the water surface open to all legitimate purposes, therefore you yield your individual privacy rights defined by the boats limits. It is not a refuge. That's not the general rule on Terra firma, though. I'm not being flip here, but the movie Waterworld introduced some interesting themes on property rights, etc. - I came away thinking that in such a culture the vessel was sovereign, but of course in that movie there was no administrative or governmental structure.

"drones" have baffled me for the last couple of years. I grew up in the Bay Area at the nexus of SF, San Jose, UC Berkeley, Stanford, Intel and Apple. I've seen computers and robotics of all sorts.

But why are these things called "drones"? I really don't get that.

Aren't they just remote controlled aircraft? Only helos with multiple rotary wings as opposed to a plane wth a single prop or engine, or a rotary winged helo?

And suddenly they're treated like a security threat? Huh? What the heck? Hell, I'd rather fly a model F-16 with a genuine jet engine, get better range and speed too than a drone. And I'm sure it's happened, but I've never heard or a regular hobbyist with a RC plane or helo get in trouble with the law, MUCH LESS the NATIONAL NEWS!

The whole drone "controversy" us utterly pathetic to the Nth degree.

Finally someone pointed out the elephant in the room. Unfortunately it is a symptom of the growing nanny state, hyperactive control freak, fear mongering society we are becoming.

With regard to the hobbyist, there is a great example of what blind fear and ignorance can do. Years ago I used to follow the website of New Zealander Bruce Simpson who was building turbojets out of turbochargers, pulse jets, and all sorts of really hot (and loud) stuff. When he casually mentioned that he could probably build a cruise missile out of stuff from hobby shops and junkyards ... it hit the fan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3302763.stm

A jet engined F-16 may be faster and fly further... but as a camera platform it's kinda' useless. It certainly can't spend any significant loiter time over your neighbors yard with a GoPro aimed down to see if his daughter is sunning on the back deck.

As for "drone", while it's not technically the correct word, it's one of those words that has become adapted to mean something else. Though to be absolutely pedantic, some of the hobby-level UAVs do have a very basic level of autonomous control (others have full GPS guidance, if you want to pay for it) so the word "drone" can apply, albeit loosely.

ASW time.


Ping__________________ Ping ______________________ Ping ____________________ Ping____________________



,, hang on,,,
woosh-bang, woosh-bang, woosh-bang,,
Got it,,
Oh, thought that was another skeet (or peeping whale)..

I was eyeing that one but for once, I don't want to be an early adopter. Too much risk of loss. Instead, I went with a DJI Phantom 3 Advance as they went on a decent sale. Maybe my next years purchase after CES will bring me a quad/hex with obstacle avoidance.

It seems to be dragging a cable or is that an antenna so it can receive signals when submerged?

Is that what's happened to all of my favorite hobby stores? Has the justice department been shutting them down

I don't know. It's like if you really wanted to, if you were a real devious zealot for whatever cause, you could weaponized anything if you put your mind to it ... a skateboard, baby carriage, ... pogostick. Heck, a model airplane, one of the real big ones (I've seen model C5s and 747s ... huge model airplanes) would be a better candidate than a drone.

As for snapping pics of the neighbor's daughter, well, it's strictly done for scientific purposes you understand

Seriously, "dones" to me are just another remote controlled thingy. And it's like the news anchors on national network news and even local news have never heard of a remote controlled aircraft. That's what really gets me. I mean, am I that old where I remember remote controlled airplanes and helicopters, but somehow these things are news?

As for a camera platform, meh, just crank up the shutter speed on your model F-16 nose mounted go-pro. Oh sure, you won't be able to hover and get shots of your hot neighbor doing yardwork in her bikini, but the image quality will be just as good (mostly).

I don't know, it's like what's the world coming to when we have to fear a fairly innocent hobby. Yes, I understand the perils "drones" (RC aircraft) can pose. I'm not blissful about it. But if YOU were a malcontent, would you really go to the trouble of using a RC aircraft over some gun?

Sorry. I had to vent. I mean what's next? Plastic models by Testors and Revelle are going to be on the hit list? Shees!

Let's return to the starting discussion. The goal is not to eliminate this new stealth technology, but to balance drone operator rights against boat owner privacy rights. Your right to operate, my right to pick my nose without being photographed. I would think that reasonable minds could agree that there is a fair balance in there somewhere, no?

It seems so to me that some sort of cone above your house or your boat should be a no-drone zone. That leaves a wide world of places to fly and photograph undisturbed.

That said, we all have to face the fact that there is a greater risk of being photographed anywhere and decide if we're doing anything we don't want photographed. Do we change our behavior or just let it go?

There are other ways we have to adjust our lives if we care. Everywhere we are we're surrounded by hundreds of people with cameras today. You see athletes every day, some of the dumber ones like Manziel more frequently than others, photographed in places or doing things they shouldn't be and those photos going viral. They should know by now the likelihood is high. On the other hand you see the occasional situation of photos emerging from fitness center locker rooms. Now you must assume it's a risk regardless of all the rules against it.

Technology giveth and taketh away. Credit cards and banking are a great example. We do everything electronically. With that comes an exposure. So, we all need to be more vigilant about monitoring our financial accounts.

So, I believe there should be regulation of drones and drone photography. But I also believe that regardless of those laws the exposure is going to be there and so we all have to consider what steps we need to take in our lives.

Drone photographers run some risks too that many of them are not aware of. Fly over a few homes photographing the yards. Get a couple of photos of girls sunbathing. Then photograph some teens sunbathing nude. If one of those is underage you've committed a crime and if you don't immediately delete it you then are putting yourself at risk.

One other warning some have learned the hard way. Flying a drone is illegal in all national parks, unless something has changed recently.

It's like anything else, there will ultimately be definition of what is and isn't legal. There will be those who think less should be legal and those who ignore the laws and do that which is illegal.

Boat owners have no more "right to privacy" in public places (the water) than any other private citizen occupying a public place.

You have the right to pick your nose, but if you do it in public view you have no right to prevent that act from being photographed. Where the debate will come into play is how those photographs are used.

Ahh, the essence of the discussion. It's all contextual. If I am anchored in a quiet cove, do I have some private right of quiet enjoyment and privacy aboard my vessel. I believe I do. There is a healthy diversity of opinion here, which, imo, demonstrates the need for some consensus regulation.

I believe that if you tried to chase someone away you might be disappointed.

While you may have a "right" to privacy while within the confines of your boat, meaning you shouldn't have to endure people boarding the boat and entering the interior (people meaning those who are not part of some law enforcement agency - which is an ever expanding class these days) but if some jerk wants to paddle his kayak around your boat or anchor a couple of feet away and gawk at you and your boat, they have every right to do so just as you have a right to gawk back. Gawking can include using a "drone" to photograph you picking your nose. Using the photo to embarrass you publicly or using it commercially without your consent (unless your nose is a big news story) is another issue altogether. How you feel about being watched is, unfortunately, immaterial.

Looked like a power cord. Turning thru the water must draw a bit of current. Something I'm sure the light weight (on board) battery can not deliver (today).

Yeah, your rights end where the other guy's starts, and vice versa. If you're in a public space, then so is he, and you can stare at him and he can stare at you until one of you blinks, gets tired, hungry, bored or whatever.

I think the whole "drone" thing has opened up the RC Aircraft hobby to people who otherwise don't have the patience nor skill to pilot a more traditional model plane or model helicopter, but, someone correct me if I'm wrong, there area already laws on the books to address operation of RC aircraft. And, again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked (the previous underwater vid not withstanding) "drones" are RC aircraft.

Not that I would advocate the following, but, if you really do have issues with drones, then get a paint ball gun, and splatter the camera with a coat of Dutch Boy (or whatever paintball users use).