Will drones end privacy as we know it?

posted at 2:01 pm on September 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Look!  Up in the sky!  It’s a bird … it’s a plane … it’s — Nano-DroneA new report from the Congressional Research Service warns that privacy may become a thing of the past in the approach Drone Age, and it may not just be the government taking a look down from the sky.  The technology that allows us to fight a war with less risk also creates more risk of government and commercial intrusion in places we may not like, emphasis mine:

The prospect of drone use inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent of government surveillance authority, the value of privacy in the digital age, and the role of Congress in reconciling these issues.

Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are aircraft that can fly without an onboard human operator. An unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is the entire system, including the aircraft, digital network, and personnel on the ground. Drones can fly either by remote control or on a predetermined flight path; can be as small as an insect and as large as a traditional jet; can be produced more cheaply than traditional aircraft; and can keep operators out of harm’s way. These unmanned aircraft are most commonly known for their operations overseas in tracking down and killing suspected members of Al Qaeda and related organizations. In addition to these missions abroad, drones are being considered for use in domestic surveillance operations, which might include in furtherance of homeland security, crime fighting, disaster relief, immigration control, and environmental monitoring.

Although relatively few drones are currently flown over U.S. soil, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that 30,000 drones will fill the nation’s skies in less than 20 years. Congress has played a large role in this expansion. In February 2012, Congress enacted the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (P.L. 112-95), which calls for the FAA to accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system by 2015. However, some Members of Congress and the public fear there are insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that drones are not used to spy on American citizens and unduly infringe upon their fundamental privacy. These observers caution that the FAA is primarily charged with ensuring air traffic safety, and is not adequately prepared to handle the issues of privacy and civil liberties raised by drone use.

This report assesses the use of drones under the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. A reviewing court’s determination of the reasonableness of drone surveillance would likely be informed by location of the search, the sophistication of the technology used, and society’s conception of privacy in an age of rapid technological advancement.  While individuals can expect substantial protections against warrantless government intrusions into their homes, the Fourth Amendment offers less robust restrictions upon government surveillance occurring in public places and perhaps even less in areas immediately outside the home, such as in driveways or backyards.

As The Hill reports, that’s not because of a lack of case law.  The Supreme Court has ruled that people have a lower expectation of privacy when outside of their house, even when that’s in the backyard.  Law enforcement can fly helicopters over private residences to conduct surveillance without a warrant, thanks to earlier Supreme Court decisions, and it’s difficult to see how the court would rationalize a difference between helicopters and drones.

Perhaps the size of the platform will matter.  After all, one can pretty easily observe a helicopter flying over the house.  That may not be true of drones, at least not for long:

Drones are cheaper to build and fly than manned aircraft, making them more useful to the government for aerial surveillance. Some drones are the size of traditional jets but others — called “nano drones” — can be as small as an insect.

At the moment, military applications drive drone technology, and the military is testing drones built explicitly to look like flying insects, as Impact Lab reported last year:

The U.S. military is developing these. innocent-looking devices that are actually some of the most sophisticated drones on the planet.   They resemble children’s toys that are left disgarded in closets around the world.

The U.S. Air Force is developing the miniature spy craft with the goal of making them so small that they resemble birds and even insects.

Some even have moving wings that military chiefs hope will look so convincing that people won’t pay them any attention.

The Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) are being developed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.

For techno-geeks, this looks pretty exciting.  For those concerned about domestic application of this technology, the emotion produced is entirely different.  Some in Congress are trying to get ahead of the technology with limitations on drone use, but not everyone’s on board with the effort, emphasis mine:

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act to require that police obtain a warrant in most circumstances before using drones. Paul’s version of the bill explicitly says evidence gathered without a warrant cannot be used in trial.

Rep. Ted Poe’s (R-Texas) Preserving American Privacy Act would only allow police to use drones with a warrant and to investigate a felony.

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W. Va.) introduced the Famers Privacy Act to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to use drones to investigate environmental violations. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) filed an amendment to the 2012 farm bill that would limited the EPA to using drones only if it is more cost-effective than ground inspections, but the amendment was not adopted.

Boxer’s amendment would have been meaningless.  Almost by definition, drone surveillance is more cost-effective than ground inspections for any purpose.  That’s a nonsense non-limitation, and it died an appropriate death. And while some might be inclined to support drone use to prevent or stop violent crime, how absurd is it that Boxer and perhaps more than a few others in the Senate want to use it for EPA enforcementThat gives us a pretty clear picture of how government will act to embrace and deploy surveillance technology, unless limits are placed on it from the beginning.

The issue isn’t cost efficiency, it’s whether government will become the kind of all-pervasive, all-seeing entity represented by Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984.  I for one will not welcome our new drone overlords.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What could go wrong?

lorien1973 on September 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Next to be developed: drone swatters that make them fall from the sky.

SirGawain on September 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

After all, one can pretty easily observe a helicopter flying over the house. That may not be true of drones, at least not for long:

I wondered why the black helicopters are no longer hovering above.

Hey… what’s that bluejay looking at?

faraway on September 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Privacy? What is this privacy you speak of?

Oh, that thing you had maybe 150 years ago? Before we had CCTV, carried around tracking devices called ‘smart phones’, drove cars with tracking devices called GPS and lowjack, used credit cards, used telephones, used Goreweb, used banks in any fashion?

Oh, right then.

CorporatePiggy on September 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I should have realized skeet can’t hover

flyfisher on September 11, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Pr0n will become much easier to film, and therefore cheaper and more available. What’s not to like?

Archivarix on September 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM

If Uncle Sam starts spying on us with drones, watch for a burgeoning new commercial market for countermeasures: jamming (passive & active); camouflage; spoofing; possibly even drone-killing or -disabling tech. You engage in the high-tech version of sneaking into my house without a warrant to plant a bug, and I’ll engage in the high-tech cersion of finding & breaking it.

Measure. Countermeasure. It’s the way of things.

OhioCoastie on September 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM

version*

OhioCoastie on September 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

There’s an opportunity for some developer to come out with a device that can scramble the transmisson of video and audio signals within a, say, 100 ft radius. Make it pocket size, and citizens can carry them around on their persons to maintain the privacy we have a right to.

Weight of Glory on September 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

how absurd is it that Boxer and perhaps more than a few others in the Senate want to use it for EPA enforcement?

Gotta catch those people putting a bucket of fill dirt on a wet spot in their backyard, don’t you know.

Rebar on September 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I, for one, welcome our new drone overlords….

whatabunchoflosers on September 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Begun, the drone war has.

abobo on September 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Yet another use for that tennis racquet.

CurtZHP on September 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Silly me. I was enjoying the hummingbirds buzzing around the garden and house today.

They were hummingbirds, weren’t they?

Seriously, my garden was my last refuge. When it creeps one out to walk around the yard it’s gone too far.

Cody1991 on September 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects , against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The courts have been using an ‘expectation of privacy’ standard in their rulings.

This ignores how ‘secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures’ the people feel when the courts continually extend what the police are allowed to do.

agmartin on September 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Romney could win some support if he would come out against this.

flyfisher on September 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

There’s an opportunity for some developer to come out with a device that can scramble the transmission of video and audio signals within a, say, 100 ft radius. Make it pocket size, and citizens can carry them around on their persons to maintain the privacy we have a right to.

Weight of Glory on September 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

The drone can still record the video on disk, for later viewing. I wonder if portable EMP emitters will be the future of privacy protection…

Archivarix on September 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Perhaps restricting these devices specifically to military and/or police operations would be apropos if we mean to retain any sort of privacy or personal liberty.

I don’t like the notion of ad agencies collecting data on people’s barbeque habits, or toy manufacturers looking at what you kid is actually doing while outdoors, or what products are you using to wash your vehicle and how often are you using them, what do you use to maintain your lawn, what sort of outdoor clothing are people wearing, how often do people swim sans bathing suit in their own pools? etc.

Besides, what’s to stop them hovering in front of your windows if your shades aren’t drawn? Or, over skylights. Checking out what you’ve got in your garage if the door happens to be open or if the blinds are closed in there? Do we still have a right to the privacy of our own home?

thatsafactjack on September 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I think they’re going to turn out to be a godsend for papparazi.

Steven Den Beste on September 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

There’s an opportunity for some developer to come out with a device that can scramble the transmisson of video and audio signals within a, say, 100 ft radius. Make it pocket size, and citizens can carry them around on their persons to maintain the privacy we have a right to.

Weight of Glory on September 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Exactly.

OhioCoastie on September 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM

YES.

But there’s a way to stop it from happening. You know, outlaw it, except in very special cases, and those cases doesn’t include police forces that will argue correctly that the drones could cut costs or save lives or make them more effective in interdicting drug criminals. Because, here, the cure is worse than the disease. Privacy is a huge part of what we value, just like freedom. So it saves lives. We don’t want them buzzing around by the thousands, in every size and at every elevation, photographing us at every step.

There are people that make the argument that kids can’t have lemonade stands, they say “because we don’t know what’s in the lemonade, we can’t let kids do that, anymore,” as if crazy things like forbidding lemonade stands is inevitable. Ridiculous. By the same token, it is not inevitable that drones take over the skies and airways all around us. Privacy trumps the other arguments. It is not inevitable, but we got to get the old guard establishment Republicans to get off their lazy rears and OUTLAW it. Or it is inevitable.

anotherJoe on September 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Privacy?

You mean the very thing that is impossible, when the State knows and controls every facet of your health and healthcare … and desires to hire 15,000 IRS agents to ensure it?

That privacy?

OhEssYouCowboys on September 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM

PRIVACY is sooooooo last century.

Pork-Chop on September 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Gives new meaning to the phrase…”oh, to be a fly on the wall…”

No way this power gets abused! /

search4truth on September 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Minority Report
When people talk about Minority Report, they always mention either the eye scanners or motion control computers. I will always remember the scene where the couple is having sex and the little spider robots come in and scan their eyes then leave. the scary part is that the couple pauses for the scan then continues doing it after the robots leave like it’s normal.

nazarioj001 on September 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM

The world changed, in bad ways, forever, on 9/11/2001.

The muzzies won.

Schadenfreude on September 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM

PRIVACY is sooooooo last century.

Pork-Chop on September 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Yep. And to think that I actually took someone to task today for being, ” too damned nosy for their own good”.

Cody1991 on September 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM

And all those drones might get sucked into a jet engine like normal birds, that can ruin your day!

pabo on September 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

So, if we have to have a personal ‘cloaking device’ on our person, and pay for another device to counter the drones, how long before they simply adjust the drones to override the ‘cloaking devices’? What then? We spend more money on yet another, more high tech, ‘cloaking device’… just so we can enjoy a little privacy?

It reminds me of what we see in built in obsolescence, and the ‘that is soooo five minutes ago’ of computer technology and its derivatives today.

Cloaking devices. I feel like we’re at a Star Trek convention!

I’m thinking better to legislate in favor of tightly restricting the use of drones in this country.

thatsafactjack on September 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Romney could win some support if he would come out against this.

flyfisher on September 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Unfortunately, Romney seems kind of like an old guard authoritarian establishment type that is going to be all for the drones, just like he’s all for the inane drug war. Yes, Romney could score some points, especially among the youth vote, if he came out against the drone incursions.
But, probably better to let Ryan speak for him on this.

anotherJoe on September 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Drone? In my yard? Without a presented search warrant?

Have shotgun – will discourage with one warning shot.

After that, there better be someone at my front door with said warrant, or that’s one dead drone.

Turtle317 on September 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM

anotherJoe on September 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I suspect you are right.

flyfisher on September 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I think they’re going to turn out to be a godsend for papparazi.

Steven Den Beste on September 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Private Investigators too. So I guess there’ll be a business opportunity for those who can come up with anti-drone tech and strategies. Business espionage seems to be another issue (aside from the obvious political implications).

I’m thinking cat owners will have an edge in being able to seek and destroy bug and bird drones. So they’ll have that going for them.

We tell our kids to pay attention to their on-line footprint, but the future looks even scarier as far a personal privacy goes.

CitizenEgg on September 11, 2012 at 2:28 PM

All of this is pretty disturbing but I do think that effective countermeasures will be developed to determine if you are being spied on by nano drones and to combat them.

dczombie on September 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

y e p

KOOLAID2 on September 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM

The world changed, in bad ways, forever, on 9/11/2001.

The muzzies won.

Schadenfreude on September 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I tend to agree.

lorien1973 on September 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Romney could win some support if he would come out against this.

flyfisher on September 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Even though it’s a perfectly legitimate concern, Romney better not say a word about this, lest he sound like Newt talking about Mars, or Ron Paul talking about, well, anything….

SailorMark on September 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

umm, you may want to check drudge like ***right now***

remember Tehran?

ted c on September 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Too bad we can’t get a right to “Shoot Down Drones”

Iblis on September 11, 2012 at 2:35 PM

umm, you may want to check drudge like ***right now***

remember Tehran?

ted c on September 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Holy…..!

SailorMark on September 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

umm, you may want to check drudge like ***right now***

remember Tehran?

ted c on September 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Here we go again. Jimmah redux.

Cody1991 on September 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Republicans want to put drones in your vagina.

faraway on September 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

As long as they paint a red & white ring on the underbelly of ‘em, I’m good.

RationalIcthus on September 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Carter = Iran

Obama = Egypt

faraway on September 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Breaking on FoxNews

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/11/exclusive-long-awaited-furious-report-spreads-blame-across-agencies/

EXCLUSIVE: Long-awaited ‘Fast and Furious’ report by the Inspector General places blame on ATF, and senior officials in the Justice Department.

bayview on September 11, 2012 at 2:43 PM

The world changed, in bad ways, forever, on 9/11/2001.

The muzzies won.

Schadenfreude on September 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I tend to agree.

Judging from what’s occurred since, I have to agree too. Just can’t wait till we’ve allowed millions more muslims to emigrate here, we’ve adopted Sharia law, and Obama declares Islam to be the national religion. What could be better.

hawkeye54 on September 11, 2012 at 2:44 PM

umm, you may want to check drudge like ***right now***

remember Tehran?

ted c on September 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

We lost Egypt to the muslim fanatacists, and we need to make it clear that O knew exactly what he was doing when he cut off support for Mubarik. If the blows up, make it clear that O, despite the window dressing or false PR facade of Bin Laden and Afghanistan, O has actually been encouraging the muslim crazies to take root around the world… and right here at home.
Make a big issue of it, because WE win huge when issues like the Ground Zero Mosque come to the fore.

anotherJoe on September 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

how absurd is it that Boxer and perhaps more than a few others in the Senate want to use it for EPA enforcement?

Scratch the surface of any liberal and you will find a totalitarian fascist. That’s why the name “liberal” (which suggests liberty) as applied to this group is so preposterous.

Burke on September 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I AM a techno-geek. So naturally, i love this stuff.

I am also a “drone” pilot. I pilot a “drone” I built myself.

(This is my old plane, which I recently crashed during a high speed low altitude maneuver. I have since replaced it with a similar model.)

Frankly, I think most of the privacy stuff is overblown. All but the most high-tech military drones have little more than a 760P camera on them. The camera you see on my plane is a 480 line NTSC CCD camera. VERY low rez. Good for piloting and seeing the pretty view, but not so great in the detail department. Also, as I recently discovered, getting low enough to make out detail with these kinds of cameras means that you risk a crash.

I am a member of a growing international community of private FPV pilots who fly our “drones” (I keep using quotes because I really dislike the term “drone” and the emotional connotations it brings with it.) purely for the joy of flying. It’s hard to explain the experience of flying a model plane from the perspective of the pilots seat, without leaving the ground.

The below video was not my creation, but was the creation of a member of the FPV flying community. It is filmed entirely from a home-made FPV airplane (or “Drone”) and does a good job of capturing the emotional aspect of FPV.

Enjoy flying through the clouds

I think it is important for us as Americans to ensure that the skies are always open and free for private citizens to fly in, and not closed off for only moneyed and big government interests.

Right now things are open. However if the big money players have their way, private citizens will be restricted to very tiny areas and the sky will be closed to us. This is wrong and un-American. We should support private “drone” pilots and all work towards allowing the skies to be open and free for anyone who wants to fly in them.

wearyman on September 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM

how absurd is it that Boxer and perhaps more than a few others in the Senate want to use it for EPA enforcement?

Not from their micro-managing every aspect of our lives point of view. It’d be absurd if they DIDN’T desire to use it for that, and may other, purposes.

hawkeye54 on September 11, 2012 at 2:56 PM

OhioCoastie on September 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Drones are FREE SKEET!!!

(Don’t need high tech countermeasures…)

landlines on September 11, 2012 at 3:03 PM

landlines on September 11, 2012 at 3:03 PM

You ARE aware that randomly firing a gun up into the air is illegal, right? And that you do NOT own the airspace over your house and that ANYONE has the right to fly ANY aircraft over your house, no need of a warrant, right?

Because if you are, those are remarkably irresponsible things you are saying.

wearyman on September 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM

You say drone, I say skeet shooting
You say red-light camera, I say paintball gun.

kurtzz3 on September 11, 2012 at 3:15 PM

wearyman on September 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM

So what’s wrong if I choose to fly BB-shaped aircraft over my own house?? Some of them may be rocket propelled. Sometimes I might experiment with flying stones.

My falcon also might retrieve small buzzing objects from my airspace.

(Are you really trying to engage me in a serious discussion on this?)

landlines on September 11, 2012 at 3:30 PM

(Are you really trying to engage me in a serious discussion on this?)

landlines on September 11, 2012 at 3:30 PM

That depends I guess. if you are just joking around, then ok. but if you are serious, then yes, a serious discussion should follow.

Remember: I fly my own private “drone” for the joy of flying. I paid for it out of my own pocket and I take threats of having it shot down rather seriously.

Talking seriously about randomly shooting down drones is akin to talking seriously about randomly keying cars. Either one is destruction of someone’s property.

wearyman on September 11, 2012 at 3:39 PM

You say drone, I say skeet shooting
You say red-light camera, I say paintball gun.

Sounds like good clean fun to me!

hawkeye54 on September 11, 2012 at 3:44 PM

You know, I’ve wondered when a need would arise for that collection of WW-2 barrage balloons I’ve been saving.

Another Drew on September 11, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Remember: I fly my own private “drone” for the joy of flying. I paid for it out of my own pocket and I take threats of having it shot down rather seriously.

Good. Then as a techno-geek, make note of this:
The effective range of a shotgun blast is in the neighborhood of 100 feet.
If you are flying over people’s homes, backyards, swing sets, swimming pools etc at a height under 100 feet with a camera you are engaging in an invasion of privacy.
Not to mention endangering others with the potential crash of your RC plane.
Defensive destruction of your toy is a reasonable response to that.
So get your ‘joy of flying’ away from private homes.

BTW – I suspect you already do that. But your reaction to the shotgun reference was outside the lines.

HammerNH on September 11, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Remember: I fly my own private “drone” for the joy of flying. I paid for it out of my own pocket and I take threats of having it shot down rather seriously.

Talking seriously about randomly shooting down drones is akin to talking seriously about randomly keying cars. Either one is destruction of someone’s property.

wearyman on September 11, 2012 at 3:39 PM

I live in my own private “home” for the joy of living. I paid for it out of my own pocket and I take threats of having it compromised rather seriously.

Talking seriously about imagined rights to spy or otherwise compromise my security or property is destruction of my rights.

If you think this is OK, you’ve got to be kidding, too!

Touche??

PS – Skeet shooting is NOT random.

landlines on September 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Maybe we’ll just limit it to EPA drone skeet over farms.

ironked on September 11, 2012 at 4:21 PM

/renews membership at local trap & skeet club…..

roy_batty on September 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Talking seriously about randomly shooting down drones is akin to talking seriously about randomly keying cars. Either one is destruction of someone’s property.

wearyman on September 11, 2012 at 3:39 PM

If you happen to be “randomly” flying it over someone’s property you takes your chances that it might “randomly” get shot down I guess, hmmmm?

roy_batty on September 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Of course once Romney’s elected there will be no more drones flying around the U.S. of A.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 11, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Betweeen trafic stop camera proliferation, speed cameras, trafic congestion cameras, and the TSA KGB, americans are accepting more and more invasions of privacy and 4th ammendment violations by default and apathy. Throw in Drunk Driving traffic stops too. Every one of these has a ‘good’ purpose but…

AnotherOpinion on September 11, 2012 at 6:47 PM

An 8, 10, or 12 gauge goose gun will do it. Actually most any semi-automatic rifle will do it. Just point ahead of the drone and empty the magazine. Keep doing this and you will eventually get it.

I know that most of you firearms “authorities” have never heard of the goose gun, as is expected.

Old Country Boy on September 11, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Okay, so THESE are the kinds of drones we need to be more worried about. I was thinking the full-size, Hellfire-packing military ones.

Stuff like this is way more vulnerable. Yeah they’ll be a lot harder to spot, but everything from duck guns to directed EMP to even an *ahem* appropriately-equipped, commercially available RC helicopter could knock them down.

I would venture that you might even be able to hit these things with a homemade rail gun, which are not all that hard to build. What’s their flight ceiling?

MelonCollie on September 11, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Time for a fleet of bug sized drone killers. Let the nano wars begin!

bitsy on September 11, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I think a BB gun might do the job pretty well.

bitsy on September 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Remember: I fly my own private “drone” for the joy of flying. I paid for it out of my own pocket and I take threats of having it shot down rather seriously.

Talking seriously about randomly shooting down drones is akin to talking seriously about randomly keying cars. Either one is destruction of someone’s property.

wearyman on September 11, 2012 at 3:39 PM

My husband flies remote controlled helicopters. Flying it over the neighbor’s yard seems extremely rude to me.

If you were to park your car in someone’s lawn, you could probably expect it to get keyed eventually.

bitsy on September 11, 2012 at 9:11 PM

I actually welcome my local law enforcement sending a drone to hover over my house and spy with or without a warrant…I need a test subject for my new home made EMP device. Measures and counter-measures. I declare WAR on robots before they become self aware and declare war on me. Robots are open season in my book.

Dino V on September 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM

Not as long as I can still get 3″ high brass #6 shot.

FineasFinn on September 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM

When I lived in Hoboken, back in the day, there were eyes everywhere, be it on the street or in the windows. You could go anywhere anytime, and it was OK. I was very glad for it.

Judge Napolitano whinges about cameras so on an so forth. Why be paranoid, when that was the fact of life forever, most places. Everyone knew everyone’s business.

As a note, this notes, and all like will live forever and ever, you might think about that when you post your photos.

Denver Bob on September 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM