Looks like Texas and New Hampshire are considering legislation ostensibly aimed at surveillance via UAVs and drone aircraft, but (as is typical with these things) so broadly worded as to make strapping a keychain camera onto a model rocket a crime unless you get the explicit permission of the owner of every square inch of land your images might capture.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/...s-war-on-robots

__________________
Bob Weiss
NAR # 88301 L2
N2IXK

Does it strike anyone as odd that these are the two states proposing such laws?

__________________
Roy
nar12605

Okay, this makes more sense now...

What they're basically trying to do with this law is to keep enviro-whackos from buzzing chemical plants, feedlots, and other commercial industry/business sites with photographic drones to try to sniff out environmental or pollution issues...

This is a rather circular "under the table" effort to outlaw the use of non-government operators filing legal complaints or lawsuits based on "evidence" obtained via "drone aircraft" and the like... by making the use of such "drone aircraft" to photograph such "violations" illegal, it invalidates any attempts to file complaints based on that 'evidence'... after all, if the evidence is obtained illegally, it cannot be used. Outlaw photography from drones, you make the evidence thusly obtained illegal, and thus invalidate the entire complaint, indeed, prevent it from ever being filed (on the basis of that evidence) and in fact give a means to prosecute those who would attempt to obtain such evidence by couching it in vague enough terms to prevent being labeled "protecting polluters from watchdog organizations"... it's rather transparent attempt...

Messing with the evidentiary rules would be rather messy... this is a "cheap and dirty" way around it...

So long as you're not trying to put BP out of business, the gubmint isn't gonna care what you're photographing... and of couse they leave the door wide open to photograph anything THEY want to photograph from the air, at any time, by any means...

Later! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

In most cases discharging a firearm is a misdemeanor unless there is injury involved. I know this is a broad definition (it is different in each location) but it could equate to the same fine as someone trespassing via drone. That said, I asked my lawyer and she told me that where I live it will likely be a $200 fine at best if prosecuted for shooting down the drone.

The problem as I see it is I won't know if the drone is there under court order or just some leftist organization trying to scare the public into mayhem. I guess that's where you have to take your chances.... My recommendation is to recover the device and make it too costly on their part.

The other option is jamming. It is rather easy to cause a signal to be lost on the standard 2.4ghz system...if that's what the wacos are using... Then it becomes a "he said vs she said" situation... or in this politically correct world, "he said vs he said"...I'm just say'n.

__________________
Bravo52
--------
Jerry Little
TRA #11767
Level 1

The most disturbing thing is it exempts the government. The one entity that does not respect privacy and liberty to begin with and already does not honor "probable cause" before conducting "random searches". The constitution tells me the government should be on the top of banned users to use such data for any "enforcement" purpose.

This coming from someone in a place where the black helicopters fly over all the time looking for growers.

Will it affect our hobby probably? Not in the near future. Its local government that are being influenced right now, and if your state is owned by corporations, a forecasted outlook may not look so good.
I still dont think it would amount to much right now, its too new and too hot to handle. Forget federal, we just got a sequester. I'm not paranoid so my view is rather conservative. The title of the thread is misleading no one is actually voting on this right now. Its way too preliminary and early. Its a testing of the waters and I expect will take some time. There is nothing laid down yet, and if there is an outcome where a new law emerges in some province, its not laid in stone for all.

__________________
Patriot
464 CMASS
MMMSClub.org
NAR #92766

Airspace and what goes on in it is governed by the FEDERAL government and nobody else. Idiotic attempts at state regulation would be overturned by federal courts.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, TURMOIL, FIASCOS, and HAVOC !

That is why we have Supreme court, so the instrumentality is in place, its in the hands of the people if they want it.

__________________
Patriot
464 CMASS
MMMSClub.org
NAR #92766

WHAAAAAT??? GH arguing for fed'l gubmint ANYTHING??

H3ll must really be freezing over... that comet must be heading dead center for Mars, is going to knock it out of orbit, sending it slamming into the Sun, releasing a huge solar flare that will fry us all... we're doomed... doomed, I say, doomed!!!!

Later! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

Just imagine what Janet Reno could have done if she'd had drones.