New Video Shows Shot Down Drone Hovered For Only 22 Seconds 664
AmiMoJo writes: The saga of the drone shot down in Kentucky got a little bit longer today. A new video from the drone shot down by William Merideth shows that it only hovered over his property for 22 seconds, and was not "peeping". The video shows the drone hovering at altitude and surveying the area before falling out of the sky. Although the video jumps around a little, the drone's owner claims that it was not edited. The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
Deliverance? (Score:5, Funny)
The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
While Dueling Banjos was playing in the background?
Re:Deliverance? (Score:5, Funny)
The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
Why is this an either/or situation? Has the shooter never heard of the legendary Criminally Paedophilic ISIS Terrorist?
Re:Deliverance? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is this an either/or situation? Has the shooter never heard of the legendary Criminally Paedophilic ISIS Terrorist?
You think you're being funny, but there are actually a lot of those. [torontosun.com]
Re:Criminally Paedophilic ISIS Terrorist (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's the Lord's Resistance Army (a Christian terrorist group) that currently holds the title for kidnapping and raping pre-teen and young teens in Africa. Boo Haram is just a wannabe in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard about the kidnapping, but I was unaware of the ISIS terrorists raping the kids.
If my information is out of date, then I'm sorry for spreading stale, incorrect information.
Even if that is true, I will make two nit-picky corrections:
ISIS IS THE PEDOPHILE ARMY.
ISIS, or at least the part of it that rapes children, would now be one of at least two "pedophile armies." Using the term "THE" makes me think "What about Boko Haram, don't they count?"
ALL MUSLIM NUTJOBS ARE IN IT FOR THE CHILD RAPING
Assuming you are just talking about the nut-jobs and are not smearing all Muslims,* I s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deliverance? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If this is all information the drone owner has to go with, I want to know how he figured out who shot the drone down? It appeared to be in range of any number of homes. Something doesn't smell right about this.
From the original story (and according to the home owner who shot it down), the drone owners drove to where they thought it went down and upon arriving, they were threatened by the home owner. He told them that he shot it down and that he would shoot them too, if they tried to retrieve the drone. So, I think it was kind of obvious that the guy who was pointing a shot gun at them and threatening to kill them was probably responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, subject-verb agreement.
Secondly, circumstantial at best, and almost certainly inadmissible.
Re:Deliverance? (Score:4, Insightful)
What does that have to do with anything? It's still shooting at something that's not causing any problems in spite of speculation. I don't go around smacking cell phones out of peoples hands because I think they're taking pictures of me. It's about the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
This, of course, could pose difficulties for Amazon or others who wish to use automated drones pervasively if they want to take off and land practically anywhere. And in my opinion, it should. But I can see it being used for remote deliveries to rural areas, or deliveries to significant-sized businesses or tall rooftops where it's prearranged, expected, and not likely to interfere with young children, pets, random passersby, etc. (or for it and its merchandise to be stolen randomly when the intended recipient doesn't pick it up or meet it right away...)
First, let me say that IMHO the guy shooting the drone acted in a hotheaded, impulsive, and dangerous manner. My post history shows I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but that's for responsible & intelligent handling and use. What this person did was neither smart nor responsible. He should be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm resulting in the destruction of private property. At the least.
Off-topic in reply to your post, matthewv789:
Where small drones would be extremely useful is i
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. This. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Typical prejudice. No better or worse than judging someone by the color of their skin. Ho, ho, ho. Redneck from Kentucky.
You're completely right so far.
I'd say the only person with a seriously misguided moral compass is the jerk who expects anyone to believe he wasn't flying over somebodies with the intention of spying on them.
Holy mother of a hard left turn. You're gonna end up murdering some poor bloke who knocks on your do ask you to call AAA, aren't you?
Only? (Score:3, Insightful)
22 seconds is quite a long time to hover over private property. It is legal to shoot firearms in my neighborhood - I would have shot it down too.
Re:Only? (Score:5, Informative)
And, this wasn't the first flight in the area that is within view of the property. FTA:
During its first flight, the Phantom apparently gave an error message and could not fly past this road without a setting change. So, Boggs brought it home, fixed the settings and swapped its battery—giving time for Merideth to go inside, retrieve his shotgun and wait for the drone to return.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am really curious as to what the error message was and why it would not let him fly further without a settings change. I am guessing it was probably something about when flying in an extended range be sure to respect the privacy of others and local laws. At least if it is like other software warnings.
Re:Only? (Score:5, Informative)
First flight mode, 100 feet restriction. Happens every time you update your firmware or you use a new device.
Re:Only? (Score:5, Insightful)
22 seconds is quite a long time to hover over private property. It is legal to shoot firearms in my neighborhood - I would have shot it down too.
That is a long time. It certainly is not just a fly over. If I am in my yard and a drone comes and hovers with a camera on me for 20 seconds, I would not be happy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if it is 60m/200ft above you where it would need expensive optics to make you look like more than a blob three pixels high?
I'm all for privacy when a drone is right in your back yard or outside your window, but realistically there are a lot of aircraft going overhead, right up to satellites with cameras on LEO. Also, drones sometimes stop to get bearings and decide on the next move. I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are 60m up, or document the incident and see what it doe
Re:Only? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if it is 60m/200ft above you where it would need expensive optics to make you look like more than a blob three pixels high?
I'm all for privacy when a drone is right in your back yard or outside your window, but realistically there are a lot of aircraft going overhead, right up to satellites with cameras on LEO. Also, drones sometimes stop to get bearings and decide on the next move. I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are 60m up, or document the incident and see what it does before opening fire.
Seriously?
You seriously think that it's unlikely for a drone to be able to take a decent quality photo from 200 feet away?
No, I can't even begin to put together a reply to this level of ignorance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it is 60m/200ft above you where it would need expensive optics to make you look like more than a blob three pixels high?
"I couldn't see anything through her bathroom window, your worship, even though I tried really really hard. Hence, I'm not guilty."
Being unsuccessful in the execution of a crime does not in any way make you less guilty
I'm all for privacy when a drone is right in your back yard or outside your window, but realistically there are a lot of aircraft going overhead, right up to satellites with cameras on LEO. Also, drones sometimes stop to get bearings and decide on the next move. I think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are 60m up, or document the incident and see what it does before opening fire.
If they're within range of birdshot then they're too close. If they're there long enough for you to fetch, unload and reload a gun, then they're there too long.
Re:Only? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if someone is fiddling with their smartphone for more than 20 seconds, do you shoot them? They could be filming you after all.
Re:Only? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if someone is fiddling with their smartphone for more than 20 seconds, do you shoot them? They could be filming you after all.
ask some of the early adopters of google glass.
Re: (Score:3)
A drone can't trespass, it didn't repeatedly come over the guy's property, and it was too high to being taking pictures of the sunbathers.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like one of those NSA apologists who says "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about." F you, dude, whoever you are.
Re: (Score:3)
Anything 83' or lower is absolutely your air space. This has been upheld by the SCOTUS. Anything over 500' is absolutely NOT your air space, it is managed by the FAA.
Anything between 83' and 500' is a legal gray area where no hard precedence has been set.
-Rick
Yeah 22 seconds? (Score:5, Insightful)
22 seconds? So the shooter was already outside in his own backyard with an appropriately loaded shotgun* just waiting for any old drone he had never seen to come by at random??
More likely scenario: Sure, on the FINAL FLIGHT over this guy's house the drone operator got 22 seconds. It was the repeated previous flights that almost certainly had to have happened that the drone operators don't want to talk about because it doesn't make them look good.
* For the ignorati, no self-respecting pro-gun redneck would keep a shotgun for personal protection loaded with #8 or #9 bird shot. If he was so wanting to shoot people as he is made out to be, there would be buckshot or even slugs in that shotgun. Hence, he was able to unload & reload in that 22 seconds... apparently.
Re:Yeah 22 seconds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this is a very likely scenario.
I live in a rural area... most folks out here, even the tinfoil crowd, don't walk around with a loaded shotgun everywhere ready to fire on whatever angers them. I'm very willing to wager that the drone operator had done his flights over that property numerous times before - enough to get the property owner to keep a shotgun handy just in case.
(...and while the property owner very poorly articulated his case judging by the summary, I would have zero problems with taking the thing down, then explaining quite clearly that the little $@#! had been flying that thing over my property repeatedly in spite of warnings, and doing so without permission or even notice.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
obviously you have no clue about the rest of the story.
his daughters saw it flying around the neighborhood, he went and grabbed his gun and WAITED for it to be above his property. and yeah it was above his property for 22 seconds. it was flying for a while before that... your vision isn't limited by your property lines, and it only hovered above his property for 22 seconds but was flying for a while before that. This guy is obviously paranoid... and took a shoot first ask questions later perspective. i'm
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wouldn't call him paranoid, the dude just likes shooting at stuff and saw an opportunity.
Just because you are crazy it doesn't mean that you are paranoid.
Re:Yeah 22 seconds? (Score:4, Interesting)
This guy [...] took a shoot first ask questions later perspective. i'm sure his neighbors appreciate him shooting into the sky at anything that doesn't look normal. I wonder if he'd shoot a humming bird because it hovers for 20 seconds?
Please enlighten us how you're supposed to ask questions first of a remote-controlled device.
I wonder what would happen to the stray bird shot that hit the neighbors house. will he pay for any damages or injuries caused by that?
That's actually part of the advantage to bird shot, it is slowed down by the drag caused by atmosphere, to the point that the terminal velocity of birdshot is probably low enough to not even leave a mark.
I do not advocate shooting into the air in populated areas, but bird shot is probably the safest conventional round that one could fire into the air.
I wonder if a rock-salt load would be enough to take down an RC aircraft?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yeah 22 seconds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except this drone was neither violating the law nor common sense.
Re: (Score:3)
So, common sense says that me flying my drone over your back yard where you have a large privacy fence, and just hovering while your teenage daughters are sunbathing next to the pool is perfectly acceptable?
You do realize that the FAA rules prohibit this behavior with remote controlled vehicles of the older variety (RC planes/helicopters), don't you?
Re: (Score:3)
It could be against the law in some jurisdictions, but anywhere in the US, it is not. FAA guidelines keep varying, the recent guideline is 10 feet. (Think of how a helicopter can go over your house, and you wouldnt bad an eyelid (well, in LA and places where helicopters are common sight atleast))
Re:Yeah 22 seconds? (Score:5, Insightful)
* For the ignorati, no self-respecting pro-gun redneck would keep a shotgun for personal protection loaded with #8 or #9 bird shot. If he was so wanting to shoot people as he is made out to be, there would be buckshot or even slugs in that shotgun. Hence, he was able to unload & reload in that 22 seconds... apparently.
Not necessarily true. For the discriminating pro-gun redneck, birdshot is a excellent choice. It's likely lethal at close range - where you need it to be - you just can't trust any old pizza delivery guy these days. At longer range it sends a clear signal - don't fuck with me, I'm crazy. Your typical terrorist/pedophile is going to go home and have a couple of unpleasant hours pulling those little pellets out of his ass. And no pesky murder charges.
And it seems to be just the ticket for the new threat on the block - quadcopters.
Add some camo and the drone operator will never see you. No, this guy was perfectly attuned to the current threat matrix.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yeah 22 seconds? (Score:5, Funny)
John Candy: It's a BB gun.
Chevy Chase: Don't try me. I could put an eye out with this thing.
John Candy: You couldn't even break the skin with that thing.
Chevy Chase: Oh, I could. I could. I could break the skin, put a little lodge under the skin, and cause a very bad infection
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Much under 10 yards though and the wad and shot are still going to be more or less a single unit dispersing a bunch of energy right into your body. The shot pellets may not penetrate deep enough to hit an internal organ, but I would imagine if you did
Re: (Score:2)
From the article:
( emphasis mine )
Re:Yeah 22 seconds? (Score:5, Funny)
no self-respecting pro-gun redneck would keep a shotgun
As a self respecting pro-gun redneck, I don't understand the concept of only posessing one shotgun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The shooter claims it was the first time the drone came over, so both parties agree on that and there is no reason to doubt that it is true. Maybe other drones had been over before, but that still doesn't excuse shooting this one.
Two out of three ain't bad... (Score:4, Funny)
The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
Okay. This was in Kentucky, so I can imagine 2 out of those 3 as possibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Think before answering this question. Which terrorist action causes bigger fear in the population?
A) Terrorista takes out the Pentagon / a famous anti-islam politician / a gay Mohammed drawer
B) Terrorists take out an everyday man with no unique characteristics, just randomly chosen, one of us
I bet the second choice can instill more fear, because everybody would think, anybody could be next. On 9/11, one initial understanding of the plane that went down in PA was that the target might have been Pittsburg
Hovered over property for only 22 seconds .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So what, nobody should have the right to fly a spying machine over your house.
I suggest reading up on Privacy Laws and Property Laws (specifically on who owns the airspace over your property). Your assumption, that nobody should have the right to fly a "spying machine" over your house, is incorrect and not supported in our current laws.
Re: (Score:2)
So what, nobody should have the right to fly a spying machine over your house.
Meh. Maybe something's wrong with me, but personally I think intent matters. As it happens, nobody does have the right to fly a spying machine over my/your house.
It's just like my lawn. I mean, yeah, those kids legally better get off my damned law, but I'm a curmudgeon if I yell at them and a psycho if I start breaking their crap because they stepped over the property line. HOWEVER, when the intent is abuse, I'm on your side; if the kids in the area decide it's time to start playing soccer in my yard w
Re: (Score:2)
How do you judge the intent of a drone flying over your property?
I see a drone flying over, I take it out. Period. The asshole flying the drone can then present is case to the local judge and explain why I have his drone in my yard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As was pointed out in the previous thread, the state this occurred in requires that there be posted no trespassing signs for it to be trespassing. No such signs existed.
You do NOT control the airspace over your property. You have exclusive air rights up to 500 feet, beyond that it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA.
Re: (Score:3)
You do not have the rights to air above your max usage of the property a court case decided by the supreme court stated a farmer could control the air above his property to 83' Which was the height of his barn. He had no rights above that point. This mans house was no more than 20-30' high. the drone crossed the property at arund 250' and got higher as it crossed the property in question.
The man who shot it down is guilty of a felony, and should be charged as such.
Re: (Score:3)
Although I'm not sure your argument is really meant to be the initiation of a debate, I'll jump in:
1. If my neighbor was hanging over my fence in a cherry picker watching what was going on in my back yard, I would probably take a picture, then call the cops and my lawyer.
2. If my neighbor was hanging a camera over my fence so that he could watch what was going on in my backyard, I might very well take a baseball bat and render his camera inoperable.
3. If my neighbor is hanging a camera over my fence but
I wonder if you can armor these drones (Score:2)
... just against bird shot or something. Its going to be annoying for Amazon etc if people are shooting delivery drones down. No one is likely to hit these drones at altitude with anything but bird shot. So if you can make the drone hardened against tiny pellets... they might just be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. But that will make them cost dramatically more, because any useful armor has significant weight in quadcopter terms.
A better way might be to build an octocopter with a ring network and redundant autopilots, so that if someone blows off part of your drone, it keeps flying. The more props you've got, the more you can lose without significant compromise to the flight profile.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just imagining people shoot down those amazon drones. Maybe if the auto pilots on the drones followed roads rather than just going as the crow flies? Sure, they could still shoot them down but maybe people would be less inclined to shoot if they didn't trespass on their airspace.
I'm a little disappointed that carbon fiber can't take a bird shot hit at 300 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little disappointed that carbon fiber can't take a bird shot hit at 300 feet.
Carbon fiber is truly amazing stuff, but when it fails, it tends to fail spectacularly. That's why we are just now moving to Aluminum for mainstream vehicles, while only small production runs are being made from CF. The only non-ultra-performance production automobile to be made mostly out of it is the i3, which is only being produced in small numbers and which doesn't use much CF. It also uses a relatively revolutionary new process. I forget where the break-even point for actually tooling up to stamp metal
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered why we use metal skins on cars at all. Why not use stretched fabric over a metal skeleton?
Bumps and dings don't happen because the fabric bends. Replacing fabric is cheap. Its way lighter than anything else which was why we used it on early aircraft.
I think I saw a BMW do a concept car on this concept... here is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I mean... just do that. You get a rip in the fabric? Its modular... order another sheet of whatever, unclip the ripped cloth, stretch the new st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A reasonable point... though it increases the time to target and uses additional fuel. I would think 200 feet would be high enough that people would just leave it alone.
Only 22 seconds (Score:2, Insightful)
Only 22 seconds? Like that makes a difference? What is the suggested amount of time to allow a drone to hover over your party and spy? I can't believe this is even an issue. If you fly your drone over my property and hover around, it will be shot out of the sky. What right do you have to spy on your neighbors? None. This is total bullshit, and I can't believe /. is churning it. Except, yes, I can. Because, you know, drones are vaguely techie things. Ooh, shiny!
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Seems awfully fast... (Score:3)
Oh boy, almost all strawmen combined (Score:5, Insightful)
"The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a pedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire."
So drug dealer was too outlandish a claim? For fuck's sake, of all the possible boogeymen, a friggin' ISIS TERRORIST??? If this bullshit argument gets to stand, I don't even want to know just how fucked up this country and its inhabitants is.
(for those that don't understand what I am referring to, you might want to read up on the Four horsemen of the infocalypse [wikipedia.org]. Yes, this is not "on the internet", but he really nearly assembled all the straw men used there. Only the drug lord is missing)
Re: (Score:3)
Well he couldn't see who was flying the drone, so he can't tell if he's Muslim, Hispanic or Black.
pfff... (Score:3)
Yes, the video might have run for 22 seconds, but that doesn't mean the drone wasn't already over the backyard, and 22 seconds is kinda long.
To me the owner of the drone should just cut his losses and leave it at that, as IMHO he shouldn't have flown/hoovered over someoneelses property.. Lesson learned the hard way.. Because you own a drone doesn't mean you can do whatever you want whereever you want.. To me the property owner was full in his rights to down the drone (shooting it with a shotgun might not have been the safest way for surrounding people)..
A white van stops by your yard and lingers 22 sec. (Score:3)
.... a white van with tinted windows so you don't know what's going on inside. Now let's say it does that repeatedly as is certainly the case with the drone.
What would you do?
Call the police? Confront the van and its occupants? Shoot at it?
Surprising! (Score:3)
Re:Why are people going to jail for this? (Score:5, Informative)
He was arrested for first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. Probably for using a firearm to vandalize private property. When you vandalize someone's stuff, you don't just get to reimburse them and everyone walks away. There are almost always criminal charges involved.
Re:Why are people going to jail for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The criminal endangerment is most likely for discharging a firearm within city limits. These statues make no exceptions for firing upward with birdshot, they draw a line and say you can't fire a weapon in city unless you are at an approved firing range. It wouldn't have mattered if he was trying to shoot crows or rats, they still would have charged him. It's in everyone's interest to prevent the firing of guns in cities.
He'll be sued for reimbursement within small claims court. Given that his gunfire was illegal to begin with the drone owner will likely win.
Re: (Score:2)
Was he within city limits? I didn't dig far enough to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Trespassing is also illegal, and since the drone's owner was not present to confront regarding the trespassing, the act of downing the drone may not be a problem, even if the means by which it was downed is.
Except that it is not clear if overflying property at low altitudes is trespassing; it's been established a property owner does not have exclusive control over the airspace above their property.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that it is not clear if overflying property at low altitudes is trespassing; it's been established a property owner does not have exclusive control over the airspace above their property.
But the public navigateable public airspace doesn't start until 500'. And air planes aren't allowed below 1000 feet over populated areas.
You are right of course that its well established we don't have exclusive control over the airspace out into the jetstream or anything, but what about at 10', 50', 100', 200' ...400' ? Who has the airspace rights there?
So its not clear to me at all that they have the right to fly them over other peoples property at that height. None of the regular aircraft exemptions appl
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't have mattered if he was trying to shoot crows or rats, they still would have charged him
Actually, they wouldn't have because nobody would have cared if he was shooting crows or rats. Only one person cared that he was shooting drones, and that person was involved in criminal trespass so if I was a cop I wouldn't be putting much credibility in his position.
Re: (Score:2)
You can speculate all you want but one of the points of these regulations is to make gunfire apparent so people call it in. There are very high odds any firearm discharge would have resulted in a call to the authorities to report it. It would have been significantly harder for them to prove it was him if he had shot vermin, without witness by a neighbor, but odds are one of his neighbors would have called in about the gun shot.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you're a racist idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Didn't the drone owner say..... (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who delivers video systems and RF downlinks for drones and helicopters I see four kinds of artifacts in that video:
1) Yes, rolling shutter artifacts appear to be there, but they're very minor (i.e. distortion in the young man's face in the lower left of the first few frames). It appears that the camera is mounted on a gyro stabilized platform. Overall, I suspect that this may even be a full-frame chip, and what appear to be rolling shutter artifacts are actually due to the high compression. Rolling shutter artifacts are very, very annoying and not tolerated well by most users so rolling shutter video chips are going out of style.
2) Lost/corrupted packets. I'm guessing that this is a VOIP system using UDP packets, and you can see some glitches in rows of pixels, like at 0:13 above the horizon to the left. These are often accompanied by 3) and seem to be a predecessor of 4).
3) Compression artifacts. This is probably MPEG-4 of some kind, and you can see the bit rate is rather low because of the blockiness and persistence of bad blocks caused by lost/corrupted packets. The bit rate is low most likely because the RF link won't support a higher one...
4) Lost Link artifacts. These are the most obvious ones, and run from brief ones less than a frame long, which produce the top-down partial-screen "wipes" to ones that last several frames or even several seconds, which look like full-frame "wipe" edits. These are almost certainly caused by loss of radio link from the drone to the ground. The recording software isn't substituting blank pixels or frames, it's just picking up where it left off when it gets the video stream back. Aesthetically, it's probably the best way to go, but if you're collecting something you expect may need to be forensic evidence, it does inconveniently make the video look like it's been edited.
If I were called in to testify on this video clip, I'd say my opinion is that the wipes are caused solely by loss of link, but the video could have purposefully been edited to appear that way.
As for why it jumps so much? His RF Link sucks. Either he's not orienting his antennas correctly (calibrate your magnetometers if you're using gimbaled antennas! Your fixed omnis should stay vertical!) or he's using very high gain omnis at too short a range, or both. Higher gain omnis have deeper nulls at zenith and nadir. (It may seem tempting to the layman, but you don't point your ground station omni at the aircraft - if you're gonna actively aim the antenna, then it should stay perpendicular to your drone.) Finally, he's probably operating in the 2.5GHz ISM band, which in a suburban area like that is probably quite noisy with WiFi and microwave oven interference. Switch to a 5GHz system, it may still be noisy, but at least you don't have all that energy from a magnetron in every home and business spewing radiation intended for hot pockets, leftover mac and cheese, and that fish somebody brings every day for lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of that was link latency and artifacts caused by poor encoding. This looks like it was recorded at a remote location, presumably the launch location. The video recorded on the drone would be of much higher quality.
Source: 7 years developing digital/IP cameras used in covert surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
The artifacts at the "jumps" looks exactly like what a number of video formats look like when you have data corruption/missing data.
That doesn't mean that it is unedited, but I'm just pointing out, I've seen this before.
Re:One Mississippi (Score:4, Interesting)
Drone operators view spying on other people as a civil liberty, and if you complain, you're some sort of evil bastard.
Go read some drone forums. You'll see every manner of justification for being a perverted peeping Tom.
Re: (Score:3)
Drone operators view spying on other people as a civil liberty, and if you complain, you're some sort of evil bastard.
Go read some drone forums. You'll see every manner of justification for being a perverted peeping Tom.
Yes, and then suggest drone registration and watch as they go "But...but...but...my PRIVACY!?!"
Re: (Score:2)
It's called being a self-entitled ass clown. It's the same kind of marginal intellect with narcissistic tendencies who likes to do road shows on residential streets at 2am or makes their motorbike idle at 200 decibels. You know, the kind of person who views the rest of the world and everyone in it as a sort of amusement park.
Re: (Score:3)
You are wrong. You have complete rights to the airspace above your property. But via federal law, planes and other air travel have been given an explicit right-of-way because the value of having the industry far exceeds the imposition on you from having air traffic overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Right of way implies passing through, not staying there. And most air traffic flies too high to look at boobies.
Not a gun nut at all, but I move to dismiss.
Re: (Score:2)
This is is what allows planes to fly over your property without paying you or getting your permission. What this guy did possibly doesn't even qualify as him defending his property rights.
First, airplanes are flying on average 30,000 feet above your house. They can't make anything out from that altitude and at that speed. They COULD fly as low as 500 feet, depending on the nature of airspace in the area, but they very likely would be flying much much higher.
Second, the airplanes are allowed to TRANSITION your airspace. They are not allowed to sit there in your airspace and record what you are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Arrant bullshit.
The asshole that flew the drone into someone's property was the criminal.
The 'air' over your backyard party, or looking into your bedroom window, is NOT public space, and you do not know what your are talking about.
You believe that you have a right to spy on your neighbors with a drone? You're delusional. Anyone can fly anything into0 your backyard and just hover there and evesdrop? Where does this way of thinking even come from. You are out of your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of what was in the guy's mind it was a criminal act and he should be charged, jailed, and required to pay damages.
I agree, but it looks like the police decided to charge the victim who was merely protecting his property instead of the criminal trespasser.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that is not actually correct -
"In that case the court held that a plane flying just 83 feet in the air—the commotion was literally scaring the plaintiff’s chickens to death—represented an invasion of property. The justices declined to precisely define the height at which ownership rights end. Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of
Re: (Score:3)
What does all of this say - the Supreme Court has ruled you own at least 83 feet above your property. So no, all airspace is definitely not public. Hopefully this will lead towards a new ruling which will legal define how much airspace you own; opposed to it being left in a legal grey area for heights between 83 feet and 500 feet.
This reminds me of ancient maritime law and how they defined 'territorial waters'. Today it's 12 nautical miles. Back in the 18th Century it was 3 miles. For several centuries it amounted to being the range of common ground-based cannon-shot. Basically, if they could shoot at you from shore, you were within their territorial waters.
It seems as good of a standard as any - if you can hit the drone with a standard 12 gauge using normal shot that's small enough to fall 'harmlessly' back to earth, then the d
Nudity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)