Don't Bring Your Drone To New Zealand 272
NewtonsLaw writes: Personal drones are changing the way some people experience vacations. Instead of toting along a camcorder or a 35mm DSLR, people are starting pack a GoPro and, increasingly, a drone on which to mount it. This is fine if you're going to a drone-friendly country, but be warned that your drone will get you into big trouble in Thailand (where all use of drones by the public is banned outright) and now in New Zealand, where strict new laws regarding the operation of drones (and even tiny toys like the 20g Cheerson CX10) come into effect on August 1.
Under these new rules, nobody can operate a drone or model aircraft without getting the prior consent of the owner over which property it is intended to fly — and (this is the kicker) also the permission of the occupiers of that property. So you can effectively forget about flying down at the local park, at scenic locations or just about any public place. Even if you could manage to get the prior permission of the land-owner, because we're talking "public place," you'd also have to get the permission of anyone and everyone who was also in the area where you intended to fly.
Other countries have produced far more sane regulations — such as limiting drone and RC model operators to flying no closer than 30m from people or buildings — but New Zealand's CAA have gone right over the top and imposed what amounts to a virtual death-sentence on a hobby that has provided endless, safe fun for people of all ages for more than 50 years. Of course if you are prepared to pay a $600 fee to become "Certified" by CAA then the restrictions on where you can fly are lifted and you don't need those permissions.
Under these new rules, nobody can operate a drone or model aircraft without getting the prior consent of the owner over which property it is intended to fly — and (this is the kicker) also the permission of the occupiers of that property. So you can effectively forget about flying down at the local park, at scenic locations or just about any public place. Even if you could manage to get the prior permission of the land-owner, because we're talking "public place," you'd also have to get the permission of anyone and everyone who was also in the area where you intended to fly.
Other countries have produced far more sane regulations — such as limiting drone and RC model operators to flying no closer than 30m from people or buildings — but New Zealand's CAA have gone right over the top and imposed what amounts to a virtual death-sentence on a hobby that has provided endless, safe fun for people of all ages for more than 50 years. Of course if you are prepared to pay a $600 fee to become "Certified" by CAA then the restrictions on where you can fly are lifted and you don't need those permissions.
I didn't bring it (Score:2)
I swear I didn't bring it. It flew there itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Classic....
Yea sure, so it followed you home and ate your homework too....
Re: (Score:2)
Classic....
Yea sure, so it followed you home and ate your homework too....
Most of the drones in use today aren't 'drones' they are RC toys. Now a real drone, programmable and autonomous... that could follow you around...
Re: (Score:3)
They're working on "follow" drones. Set it to lead, follow, or orbit and it'll track you. Or, more accurately, it'll track the device you're carrying.
More Sanity (Score:5, Informative)
How is it not sane to think that the people who could be potentially hit by your craft would have something to say about it flying over them?
I find this a perfectly reasonable law. Don't forget it means that could could fly on private property NEXT to the public property and film from there, as long as you are not directly over the public area...
Re:More Sanity (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly this.
This seems like a very reasonable law to me. I would only add one more provision though.
I think that they could designate some common public areas in which you could fly and anybody who entered the are giving implicit permission to have drones flying around them. That way, if you don't want a drone dive bombing you and taking HD video, you just stay away from the areas where it's allowed. There would have to be a "fair warning" signage requirement, but leave it up to the local authorities who are enforcing the "no drone" rule to decide where to allow drones.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be good to also have it possible to operate a drone without the restrictions if you were under the supervision of someone who was certified. So someone could take their friends or family out and they could fly the drone while that person was there to give direction. Or a certified person could rent out a drone and be present.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds good. I'm for first making a blanket ban, then thinking of exceptions. That's two worthwhile exceptions so far: (1) Make designated fly spaces, and (2) Allow flight when accompanied by someone who's trained and who can lose their certification if they break certain rules regarding safety and privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep parroting this (which I replied to elsewhere), but 'designated fly spaces' is not what this technology is for. (And before you respond, it's not "for" "violating privacy" either). It's like saying the only place you should have a gun is on a range. I'm no gun nut, but I still think that sentiment is a little absurd.
Anyway, one thing that's important to understand is that these are HUGELY different from RC Aircraft. They do not require the same vertical space. They can stop, turn, and hover on a dim
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, you also think that kites should be treated the same way?
And baseballs, footballs, soccer balls?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Far, far more people are injured and killed by balls used in sports than R/C models.
I'm not sure why anyone would think that given how much less mass they have, and the fact they are almost entirely physically controlled. If a string breaks they flutter to the ground, not plummet.
Maybe. You seem to be comparing small kites to big models -- what if it's a tiny model [amazon.com] vs a big kite [nypost.com]?
I imagine that significantly more people have been injured and killed by kites [odditycentral.com] than R/C models.
Ultimately, it would make sense to regulate kites in exactly the same way as R/C aircraft, as the risks are very similar -- do it by size or weight, for example. But kites are considered "normal" and R/C aircraft are not, and so w
Re: (Score:2)
Drones though are just one mechanical failure away from lethal force given the height and mass they generally have during operation, all without any effort
How is a one ounce drone more dangerous than my neighbour's cricket ball?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's flip this argument around a little bit --
How is it not sane to think that the people who could be potentially hit by your frisbee/kite/football/running toddler would have something to say about it being done near them?
I find this a perfectly reasonable law. Don't forget it means that could could play on private property NEXT to the public property, as long as you are not directly over the public area...
Far, far more people have been injured by balls than R/C models -- a kicked soccer ball has more energy than a small R/C aircraft -- and yet we aren't banning people from playing soccer in fields.
We could even apply this argument to cars -- they kill more via collisions than anything else. But of course almost everybody drives, so we can't limit them more -- but only a few people fly R/C aircraft, so we *can* discriminate against them.
And the "film from there"
Re: (Score:2)
> far more people have been injured by balls than R/C models
First, that's because historically the number of RCs was microscopic.
Second, exercise is something we need to promote as much as possible. Voyeurism and general being-a-jerk needs less help.
Re: (Score:2)
And fuck those flip-flops! One of those things could fly off your feet and hit me!
You know what, no more shoes. I feel safer already.
Re: (Score:3)
Because back when they cost €400, they were only bought by serious hobbyists who spent a lot of time practising flying them in limited ways before going anywhere near a public place, and they were very careful about not crashing.
At today's prices, they get bought as gifts for people with a passing interest and it's no huge loss if they crash into a house or crash land on a road.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, a photographer with a telephoto lens cannot sell pictures of you or post them in any publicly viewable media without your permission, but what about drone footage of you?
Duh, it would fall under the same law that any other video footage did.
You do know, dude, that a camera doesn't actually STEAL YOUR SOUL, right? Because you sound an awful lot like the people who believe that.
Re: (Score:3)
You do know, dude, that a camera doesn't actually STEAL YOUR SOUL,
People say that a lot, but technically a camera is making an illegal copy of your soul.
No its just making a picture of the packaging it comes in.
Re: (Score:3)
But what about photographs of you? After all, your premise is entirely false. A photographer can sell a picture of you, and most certainly can post them on publicly viewable media without your permission. The photographs cannot be used for commercial endorsements or in advertising without your permission, but a photograph take
Americans Always Breaking New Ground (Score:3, Insightful)
Going to a foreign country to visit and having a drone flying over your head... Really? Always finding new ways to display an astonishing lack of class.
Re: (Score:3)
Going to a foreign country to visit and having a drone flying over your head... Really? Always finding new ways to display an astonishing lack of class.
As an American, I am in agreement. And note that as is always the case, the ones who bitch the most about this and completely lose their minds over it will never, ever, visit New Zealand or any place with such laws. I had a friend some years ago (we're not friends any more because he's basically nuts and I had enough) who last flew in an airplane around in 1998 or maybe 1999. Definitely well before Sept. 11, 2001. You couldn't say anything at all to him about traveling anywhere by air without him going
So get certified (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not death to the hobby... (Score:3)
It just means that you will need to fly them on private land.
I have an RC aircraft habit myself and that's what I do, fly on private land. I suppose I could use the street in front of my house, but it's kind of dangerous and noisy so I don't think my neighbors would appreciate it so I joined a club. The club I'm in has agreement with a private land owner and we fly on their property. The hobby will not die, it will just be relegated to private property.
I understand why people are upset, but let's face it, the crazies among us who insist on flying their drones in places they shouldn't have, taking pictures of things they shouldn't have and being irresponsible in general have made this necessary. Don't blame the government, blame the crazies that make this necessary for privacy and safety.
Re: (Score:2)
"The people driving horseless carriages recklessly at TEN MILES AN HOUR are the ones who have made the Red Flag Act necessary. Don't blame the government, blame the crazies who have made this law necessary!"
The real crazies are the ones who think they can make the Drone Red Flag Acts stick. Drones are only going to get smaller, more capable and more ubiquitous. If you think you can stop the tsunami of technological progress, you're like the buggy whip makers who thought that forcing car owners to have a man
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try, but I'm not buying it.
The Red Flag act was indeed necessary for a time due to the unfamiliar technology which could easily kill was being used in public under less than ideal conditions or traffic rules. It was a public safety issue until the public became generally aware of automobiles, roads improved to handle automobiles, and traffic laws where in place to govern their operations.
So, I do not think the Red Flag laws where crazy when put into historical context, any more than the laws requir
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously claiming, that, a few years from now, the New Zealand police will be arresting every Japanese tourist walking around town with a ten gram drone following them around and posting pictures to Facebook?
Do you think the police there have nothing better to do? Or that the people making money from tourism would support such a measure?
Re: (Score:3)
You did read my post right?
I fully recognize that the issue with this regulation is going to be enforcement and I said so.
Likewise, the laws being discussed here may indeed look silly in 50 years, but they are reasonable and sensible NOW. The only real question is about enforcement, which may be difficult (as you point out.)
So for now, the law is fine. Could it become an issue for enforcement in the future? You betcha. Will it? Seems likely to me, but there's no way to be sure.
But just because a law is possibly going to be hard to enforce in the future is not enough to make it a bad one now. .One could have argued that with the foreseeable advent of fire hydrants and pumper fire engines, which both
The perception of "drone" is powerful (Score:2)
The mainstream public is a bit ridiculous when it comes to drones - they think they're so important that another person would waste their time and spy on them using a drone. First off, you're not that important, get over yourself. Second, do you have any idea what kind of footage a drone would have at 100 ft away? Keep in mind that while it's high-def, there's no zoom. A drone would need to be 10 ft away to get a clear image of your face.
If you ask these same people how they feel about low flying aircra
Re: (Score:3)
First, let's be clear: I don't like the new law. I think it goes too far by requiring the consent of all present rather than just the landowner, which would be entirely reasonable. But you need to work on your argument.
Second, do you have any idea what kind of footage a drone would have at 100 ft away? Keep in mind that while it's high-def, there's no zoom. A drone would need to be 10 ft away to get a clear image of your face.
Technology moves. You say that today, but tomorrow, there probably will be zoom. The technical problems are well understood. This isn't a useful argument to make, because it isn't likely to remain true over any useful length of time (if it even is true; I didn't bother seeing if someone has a
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for proving my point so quickly.
I don't have any problem with a drone flying over my property, if it's 300-400 feet up. I mean, I don't have a problem with a helicopter flying 300ft over my property, what's the difference if it's a drone or kite or bird or anything else?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care about your excuses. I think you should be banned from flying over a property if the property owner deems he doesn't want you flying over his property, and further, I think a property owner should have the right to shoot your toy out of the sky and send you a bill for the bullet. I'd actually make it a criminal charge with a minimum $50,000 fine. I'd make it so expensive and difficult for you to play with your little kiddy toys over my property that you'd finally just go fucking home.
Self entitled assholes like you have made it clear the only way to deal with drones is to make it so damaging for assholes like you to even fly one that you find some other toys to play with
There'd be a lot fewer wedding party fatalities if Afghanistan implemented this law...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about your excuses. I think you should be banned from flying over a property if the property owner deems he doesn't want you flying over his property
Of course you also think that a person flying a Cessna at a 1000 feet should have to check with every landowner below his flight path, too, right? No?
Why? Be very, very specific.
Rent-a-pilot? (Score:3)
.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a bad business plan. Offer Drone Tours of New Zealand - precepted tours in places selected for appropriateness and beauty. Either BYO Drone or rent one. Maybe even learn some things.
The analogy would be photographic tours where you go with a guide that knows the area, knows what to view and when, has access to places you would not normally be allowed to go. A bit of a niche, but an idea...
Oops, they left out the part (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sane? (Score:2)
Other countries have produced far more sane regulations — such as limiting drone and RC model operators to flying no closer than 30m from people or buildings
That's not a 'sane regulation'. It prevents you from flying a palm-sized drone pretty much anywhere in a city.
These are basically the Red Flag Acts of the drone era. Ooh, scary, Ug not like scary thing, Ug must ban!
But, hey, if those countries don't want anything to do with one of the most important industries of the 21st century, doesn't worry me.
Re: (Score:2)
> It prevents you from flying a palm-sized drone pretty much anywhere in a city.
Perfect.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooner or later it's going to happen elsewhere. The extraordinary lack of etiquette and basic decency among some drone owners is steadily going to make the public outcry to do something about the problem greater and greater.
Stop flying your fucking toys over my fucking property.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's perfectly reasonable to require the permission of a landowner. I think it's unreasonable to require the consent of all present.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are all these asshole multirotor pilots? I've seen a grand total of zero people flying multirotors in public areas. Zero. And I spent part of 2013 and most of 2014 wandering around the country (United States) visiting lots of scenic places where I would have expected to see at least one person flying a camera platform. I have yet to see one flying at a park, lake, canyon, city square, sports arena, concert venue, city/county/state fair, tractor pull, race track (horse, car, or dog), beach, or anyw
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like they must be more common (densely packed) in cities. I never see any where I live (a moderately rural farm town).
Re: (Score:2)
Where are all these asshole multirotor pilots?
I think they're mostly a projection by the anti-drone nutters. THEY would use a drone to spy on their neighbour's teenage daughter if they had one, therefore everyone would.
It's like the anti-gun nutters who know that no-one can be trusted with guns, because THEY would go crazy and shoot everyone nearby if they had one.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
In California recently, firefighting aircraft were grounded due to a bunch of "Dorks with Drones" that were flying haphazardly over the fire. Just check Google News with "California fire drone".
Re: (Score:3)
No they were not. Those 'drones' as you call it and so readily believe what the media spoon fed you, were not the quadcopters everyone now imagines.
Those 5 aircraft were RC gliders that were operating from an established, air chart marked, field. they were fixed wing aircraft that had been in the air for many hours before the wildfire was a problem. There is no practical or legitimate way for those operators were to know of fires springing up in the distance and creeping into the area. There was no TFR in e
Re:Yep (Score:5, Funny)
You guys are fucked. Enjoy your draconian regulations.
To be fair, New Zealand is the country iconic for having flightless birds that are utterly incapable of surviving against species introduced to the island. It seems only appropriate that their drone situation should be similarly flightless and delicate.
Re: (Score:2)
They couldn't get real dragons, so they got draconian legislation? Sounds positively Napoleonic to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Bring Your Drone to New Zealand While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood
- Please, Flight of the Concords, make this spoof.
Re: (Score:2)
The logo for their air force is the same as the British with a red Kiwi in the centre. The symbol of their air force....is a flightless bird!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, New Zealand is becoming more and more over-regulated all the time. It used to have a refreshing lack of bureaucracy compared to, say, the UK - but now it's the other way around.
All of the primary English speaking countries are going down the same over-regulated path; Canada, USA, UK, Australia, NZ. They may as well be the same country as far as I'm concerned. Stifling, oppressive, paranoid, reactionary. Its times like this I'm really sad that I'm a native English speaker. I guess its time to start learning Spanish or something.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the primary English speaking countries are going down the same over-regulated path; Canada, USA, UK, Australia, NZ. They may as well be the same country as far as I'm concerned. Stifling, oppressive, paranoid, reactionary. Its times like this I'm really sad that I'm a native English speaker. I guess its time to start learning Spanish or something.
So you can live in a non-oppressive country like Mexico, or most of the countries in central and south America?
We need to fight to maintain our freedoms and there's no doubt that things have been getting progressively worse. But get a little perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the primary English speaking countries are going down the same over-regulated path; Canada, USA, UK, Australia, NZ. They may as well be the same country as far as I'm concerned. Stifling, oppressive, paranoid, reactionary. Its times like this I'm really sad that I'm a native English speaker. I guess its time to start learning Spanish or something.
So you can live in a non-oppressive country like Mexico, or most of the countries in central and south America?
We need to fight to maintain our freedoms and there's no doubt that things have been getting progressively worse. But get a little perspective.
There is this other country [wikipedia.org] you may have heard of. I hear the speak quite a bit of Spanish there.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno, maybe Spain? :D
Re: (Score:2)
And New Zealand has some of the most dronable scenery in the world, too. This regulation will not survive a week in Queenstown.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, and there is no expectation of privacy in public places.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, and there is no expectation of privacy in public places.
But this is about more than just public places.
I have a backyard that's entirely screened from my neighbors with foliage. I don't have anything particularly interesting going on in there, but by the definition of what provides a reasonable expectation of privacy, my backyard is private. You can't see what's back there with just a casual glance from outside my land; you have to use specific means to do it. If there were a drone flying around, looking down at me while I was back there grilling or whatnot,
Re: (Score:2)
So, why do they need the consent of everyone present? If a store can have CCTV without the consent of everyone present (only the owners), then why couldn't a landowner give consent for someone to fly a drone over their property, regardless of whether or not they invited other people?
There is such a thing as balance.
Re: (Score:3)
As to those who feel this is unnecessarily burdensome, how would you feel if a person put a camer
Re: (Score:3)
You're describing two different scenarios - the key difference is intent.
Erecting a pole with the *specific purpose* of looking into my yard is against the law.
Similarly, flying a quadcopter with the *specific purpose* of looking into my windows is against the law, and was already against the law before quadcopters were prevalent.
Flying a quadcopter with a camera in a public place (or over private property) where your yard is incidentally within view is NOT an invasion of privacy and no additional laws shou
Re: (Score:3)
That's ridiculous, and shows you don't actually know what these are. 99.999% of the tens of thousands of daily quad flights are for 'good clean fun'.
There are bad apples with every single technology - are you going to propose we 'ban all uses of computers, then start to make exceptions'? Do you want to 'ban all uses of cellphones, then start to make exceptions'?
Give me a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Things that are different should be considered separately.
It's true that there are plenty of hobbyists who like good clean fun, but that doesn't mean every new drone owner can do whatever they like. Drones are becoming a pest, so we should think of how to limit them so they're not a pest (a broad ban) and then we should think of how to allow the good clean fun hobbyists (exceptions such as designated fly areas, drone clubs, certification which involves training and can be revoked for breaches of safety and
Re: (Score:2)
Where have you personally observed them 'being a pest'? I want to hear your experiences, which will lend credibility to your kneejerk reactions; don't just point to yawn-worthy "news" stories.
Re: (Score:3)
If the things I propose banning (such as peeping, tracking, stalking, harassing)
Don't most places already have laws against those things? Do we really need to pass new laws that include the text of the old ones with the phrase "using a drone" tacked on the end?
then why do you oppose the banning those things?
Because the abuses of the few shouldn't cause a restriction on the freedoms of the many.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why should I have to act illegally to retain all the freedoms I grew up with?
What we grew up with (i.e. how the world was until a few years ago) was that a very small number of hobbyists would buy these expensive things. They'd practise, they'd be very careful with their expensive toys, and they flew for the fun of flying rather than peeping (their RCs had no camera). The only ones I saw were in a certain part of the same park every Sunday.
That's what existed when we were growing up, and to preserve
Re: (Score:2)
along with due process laws.
Please continue...
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're on public land, you don't get an expectation of privacy.
I've often heard this repeated, but is it actually true?
Suppose I'm in a public space (say, a park) having a quiet conversation with someone, and keeping track of passersby: If someone walks up we stop talking.
Does this mean that someone (from the government) with a parabolic mic can eavesdrop on my conversations without a warrant?
The argument is that it's only what a policeman would hear if he walked up and listened, but in that case we would stop talking.
I have every expectation of privacy if I take steps to ensure that privacy: looking around to make sure no one can see me, for instance. Does this mean that the police can video-tape the sidewalk from the window of any office building without a warrant?
I also note that there's no expectation of privacy *in your home* if you don't have the drapes closed. The implication is that we don't have an expectation of privacy *anywhere*, except in our homes and only if we're concealed.
Does that sound like a free country?
If you're on public land, you don't get an expectation of privacy.
In any event, we shouldn't be mindlessly repeating that meme as if it's the "law of the land". The more you say it, it only makes more people believe it.
Instead, we should be mindlessly repeating things things that sway public perception in a better direction.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I've often heard this repeated, but is it actually true?
As much as anything in law, yes. That is to say that it is the general case, but you still get the chance to argue about it in front of a judge* if following the general rule has somehow bothered someone enough to make a harmony-threatening societal problem. Let's break down your example by each fact.
Suppose I'm in a public space...
Then you have no general expectation of privacy, but let's go on.
If someone walks up we stop talking.
Ah, but now you've provided an indication that you want privacy. Now we have a conflict of general rules.
Does this mean that someone ... with a parabolic mic can eavesdrop on my conversations...
Sure, because you're in a public place.
...(from the government) ... without a warrant?
No, because you've shown that you do not consent to their search... ...maybe.
It really depends on local precedent and established case law. Pretty much, if this ever comes up in a court, it would be a good opportunity to argue at length in front of the judge. On the one hand, you were in public, and you should be aware that any kid with a $50 toy microphone or $5 radio bug could listen to your conversation. On the other hand, the government is held to stricter rules (namely the Fourth Amendment) than a kid with a large allowance. If you're stopping for everybody, then you can argue that you aren't intending to obstruct justice or hide evidence of a crime (which might be useful justifications to sway the judge). On the other hand, you didn't check the park bench for bugs before talking, so maybe you didn't really care about more organized eavesdropping.
The argument is that it's only what a policeman would hear if he walked up and listened, but in that case we would stop talking.
No, the argument is whether it is reasonable to expect that your conversation would remain private. That depends a lot on the extent to which you tried to hide your conversation, and the opinions of judges in the area. Different public places have different standards for privacy.
I have every expectation of privacy if I take steps to ensure that privacy
You can expect a pony, too, but the justice system doesn't need to recognize that expectation. Rather, the key word often omitted (including in my earlier post) is that you may have a reasonable expectation of privacy... and again, that depends heavily on the local definition of "reasonable".
Does this mean that the police can video-tape the sidewalk from the window of any office building without a warrant?
In many cases, yes, and they do.
I also note that there's no expectation of privacy *in your home* if you don't have the drapes closed. The implication is that we don't have an expectation of privacy *anywhere*, except in our homes and only if we're concealed.
That is correct. If you don't care enough about your privacy to close the drapes, then why should the court care enough to punish someone who looked in? Now, if your house was very far from the nearest public area, such that it would be unreasonable to worry about someone seeing clearly through that window, then there's room to argue that, as well.
Does that sound like a free country?
Yes. It sounds like a country where I am free to walk in a park without worrying about violating someone's privacy because I have good hearing, and where I am free to bring birdwatching equipment out to where birds are. I am free to look at my neighborhood houses, and I am free to leave my drapes in whatever state I wish. The price of that freedom is only that I must recognize others' freedoms a
Re: (Score:2)
If you're on public land, you don't get an expectation of privacy.
I've often heard this repeated, but is it actually true?
Suppose I'm in a public space (say, a park) having a quiet conversation with someone, and keeping track of passersby: If someone walks up we stop talking.
Does this mean that someone (from the government) with a parabolic mic can eavesdrop on my conversations without a warrant?
The argument is that it's only what a policeman would hear if he walked up and listened, but in that case we would stop talking.
I have every expectation of privacy if I take steps to ensure that privacy: looking around to make sure no one can see me, for instance. Does this mean that the police can video-tape the sidewalk from the window of any office building without a warrant?
Pretty sure they can actually.
Stop being mindless. (Score:2)
If you're on public land, you don't get an expectation of privacy.
I've often heard this repeated, but is it actually true?
Suppose I'm in a public space (say, a park) having a quiet conversation with someone, and keeping track of passersby: If someone walks up we stop talking.
Does this mean that someone (from the government) with a parabolic mic can eavesdrop on my conversations without a warrant?
Yes. That's exactly what it means (in the US) because that's the line the courts have upheld. There are some exceptions, based on state and local laws, but that's the federal law.
The argument is that it's only what a policeman would hear if he walked up and listened, but in that case we would stop talking.
Who made that argument? I haven't read the arguments in the cases argued before the SCOTUS, but I'd be very surprised if you can point to that argument in the court records. In fact, I suspect the problem is that you didn't realize that "Expectation of privacy" is a legal term used in discussing the fourth amendment to the US Const
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy is, to me, the most basic right. Without it, all the rest means nothing. I believe it was so obvious that it was not even included in the amendments in the USofA.
What?
Amendment IV
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In New Zealand, as in other Commonwealth Realms, public land is owned by the Crown, so the Queen in Right of New Zealand, can set any regulations it wants on who can fly over Crown land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a special new law for that. Such an event is already covered by the same laws that make a person liable if they throw a ball and it hits you, causing injury. It doesn't matter what injures you. A specific law for every potential cause of injury isn't necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
But you do have an expectation of a drone not falling on your head or flying in your face.
You also have an expectation of not being bitten by a dog, hit by a car, run into by a person on a bicycle or using rollerblades. New Zealand should definitely make sure that nobody be allowed to drive a car to a public space, just in case. Or ride a bicycle - think of what might happen! And kids running around - total tripping hazards, so definitely no children allowed out of the house, anywhere.
There, feeling more rational now? No? Ah.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I fly drones (real ones, not this crap that DJI sells, those are just Quads with some halfassed flight controllers).
I think this is GREAT. This is simply common sense. Someone else's property is not yours to do with as you wish, that includes public lands.
Quads ARE DANGEROUS when they are large enough to carry a camera. A drop from even 10 feet above your head with a 5 pound object is MORE than enough to be RELIABLY LEATHAL.
Re: (Score:2)
My littlest quad with a camera is 4 3/4" from rotor tip to rotor tip. Takes 1280x720 video. Not very high quality but good enough to check the gutters this afternoon. Way less than 5 pounds. While I wouldn't want it to fall on my head, I strongly doubt its lethality. I've also got a non-camera quad that's 2 5/8" from tip to tip. I'm sure that size range will have cameras soon. I doubt it would even sting if it fell on my head.
Re: (Score:2)
I've also got a non-camera quad that's 2 5/8" from tip to tip. I'm sure that size range will have cameras soon. I doubt it would even sting if it fell on my head.
Soon? Palm-sized drones with cameras, with and without FPV, have been on the market for... well, quite a while.
Re: (Score:2)
We should try this. For Science!
No offense or hard to you or your head intended... just curiosity regarding the terminal velocity and freefall aerodynamics of a quadcopter, especially when the object below it is rather delicate (like, say, a pool of ballistics gel).
Has such a situation been tested, since the introduction of tiny and lightweight devices?
Aperture Science (Score:2)
We should try this. For Science!
"We do what we must, because we can, for the good of all of us; except the ones who are dead."
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is GREAT.
That's awesome. I think it would also be great to never have to worry about you sneezing, or having a stroke, or being momentarily distracted, or having a mechanical failure as you drive your car to wherever you fly your non-crap drones. Because unlike the countless deaths we're seeing by drones (let's see... essentially none whatsoever despite untold hundreds of thousands, even millions in use), people are actually killed for real dead in car accidents every single day.
Cars ARE DANGEROUS when they are
Re: (Score:2)
See how this works? The Nanny State pendulum can swing in several directions.
Dude, in my experience, the people who want to ban drones are the same people who want to ban cars.
Ug scared. Ug ban.
They won't be happy until they force us all back to the Stone Age. Oh, except stones are dangerous, so maybe it will have to be the Fluffy Feather Age.
Re: (Score:2)
TBF, the guy in the Huff Po story you linked to only killed himself
Re: (Score:2)
TBF, the guy in the Huff Po story you linked to only killed himself
yeah but in NZ you aren't allowed to kill yourself, its against the law!
Re: (Score:2)
Show me one instance where someone is specifically advocating for "unlimited right to invade people's privacy" (* Government entities not valid for this discussion, of course).
The vast, overwhelming majority of quadcopter operators do NOT want to 'violate people's privacy'. It's also increasingly obvious that people don't actually understand what is or isn't an violation of privacy. Flying over public space, or even permissible private property (like my own, or a friend's), where your yard or person is simp
Re:The green green hills of hooooome (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. Nothing better than sightseeing through a swarm of drones, relaxing in the peaceful atmosphere of buzzing electric motors, marvelling in the sight of your fellow tourists getting smashed in the head.
That's just what people go to NZ for, isn't it? It would be terrible if selfish dickheads were prevented from ruining it for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
> Man a ban on tourist video drones would be terrible for sightseeing.
And yet sightseeing has thrived since forever and even today the 99% of the tourist population that has no drones still manages.
Ban them all, then think about exceptions (such as designated fly spaces: a part of a park, a football pitch when not being used, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
Papers please, comrade!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It makes total sense, and is perfectly reasonable, that I should have to request permission from the city to fly a one ounce drone, and stop if anyone complains.
Knee-jerk. Knee-jerk. Watch that knee jerk.
Re: (Score:2)
And when a drone is buzzing around the window of my apartment, who do I complain to? Do I phone a national hotline where a call centre agent will ask me "And what does the drone look like, sir?" How would that work?
And does how does this help me delete the pictures the drone's been taking?
And what if the drone was taking pictures and I didn't spot it?
You might have good intentions, but that law is worthless. Start with a blanket ban, and then think of exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's a drone flying outside your window, you close the curtains.
But, hey, be a buggy whip maker if that makes you happy. It won't stop the bad guys STEALING YOUR SOUL with their EVIL DRONE CAMERA, because, you know, bad guys don't give a crap about laws.
Man, this site has gone downhill in the last few years.
Re: (Score:2)
> If there's a drone flying outside your window, you close the curtains.
No, I like daylight. And I like sunbathing in my apartment.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I like daylight. And I like sunbathing in my apartment.
Oh, you're just making fun of the anti-drone nutters. Sorry, I though you were serious.
Pretty good troll. I'd give you at least 7/10.
Re: (Score:3)
A female friend doesn't want to take a certain bus any more because it goes through some rough areas and last year all the way home three guys were putting their hands in front of her face saying "I'm not touching you". She was pretty scared.
The drone users claiming they have a right to fly (and more importantly that this right shouldn't be limited) remind me of those guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you fly a drone over my property, we get to find out how effective the various loads of 12 gauge shot shells are.
Sure, other than the fact that shooting at any aircraft - manned or otherwise - is a federal felony.
Re:New? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm by now means an expert, but I was of the understanding NZ already had some pretty draconian legislation with regards to model aircraft flying, to the extent that it's effectively restricted to LoS, by licensed amateurs (or those under the supervision of) at designated airfields.
It's not draconian, and the new drone rules are just existing model-aircraft rules modified a bit for drones. Basically, you can fly from/over private property without any problems (e.g. your own house, your farm, etc). If you want to launch your model aircraft, and now drone, from somewhere like a public park you need to check that it's OK (so you don't fly your whatsit into the middle of a bunch of kids playing, but in any case many places have blanket OK's for flying, not just parks but school playing fields on weekends or with a teacher present to supervise, that sort of thing). You can't fly into controlled airspace (around airports), outside LoS (formulated for model aircraft, before you had onboard live video feeds), or above a certain height.
The Slashdot submission is a nice piece of sensationalism, but really all the rule is doing is formally extending the generally sensible rules for model aircraft to cover drones as well.