TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

n5wd wrote:Another consideration to think about:

Your ol' lady is lying down in the back yard wanting that all-over tan. She sees a drone flying at the back edge of your property (let's say it was a suburban area, large lots with an alley in between). You walk out, responding to her scream, and pop a shot at the drone (don't miss, though - that bullet or pellets have got to go somewhere, and you don't want to hit the kids in the lot a few yards south of you).

You hit the drone - it crashes into your yard (or the alley) and you retrieve it. While inspecting it you notice the company name on it and call it. They say they'd like their drone back. In fact, they're sending someone out right now to re-posses their property. And the front door bell rings. And you open it to find a mean looking deputy sheriff, along side a guy in a flight suit.

It seems that you took down a $5,000 drone that was photographing the house behind yours for the real-estate office that's handling the sale of the house. The company that operates the drone gets $500 per house to do a package of video and still photograph, and it was doing a 360 degree orbit around the house when all this went down.

And, oh, by the way, the sherriff is there to arrest you for destruction of private property over $2,000 (the camera being flow by the drone is a special one) and its on-board diagnostics shows that it's trash, now.

Seems the drone company had a permit from the county to do the flights, and ... well, you see where this is going, don't you?

I'm not saying that the whole thing isn't worth it to you and the ol' lady, but not all the drones flying around are owned by a hobbyist that invested $49 at Radio Shack for a toy quadcopter.

So... you're saying the government can give 3rd parties permission to make a porno starring my hypothetical wife without her knowledge or consent?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

n5wd wrote:Another consideration to think about:

Your ol' lady is lying down in the back yard wanting that all-over tan. She sees a drone flying at the back edge of your property (let's say it was a suburban area, large lots with an alley in between). You walk out, responding to her scream, and pop a shot at the drone (don't miss, though - that bullet or pellets have got to go somewhere, and you don't want to hit the kids in the lot a few yards south of you).

You hit the drone - it crashes into your yard (or the alley) and you retrieve it. While inspecting it you notice the company name on it and call it. They say they'd like their drone back. In fact, they're sending someone out right now to re-posses their property. And the front door bell rings. And you open it to find a mean looking deputy sheriff, along side a guy in a flight suit.

It seems that you took down a $5,000 drone that was photographing the house behind yours for the real-estate office that's handling the sale of the house. The company that operates the drone gets $500 per house to do a package of video and still photograph, and it was doing a 360 degree orbit around the house when all this went down.

And, oh, by the way, the sherriff is there to arrest you for destruction of private property over $2,000 (the camera being flow by the drone is a special one) and its on-board diagnostics shows that it's trash, now.

Seems the drone company had a permit from the county to do the flights, and ... well, you see where this is going, don't you?

I'm not saying that the whole thing isn't worth it to you and the ol' lady, but not all the drones flying around are owned by a hobbyist that invested $49 at Radio Shack for a toy quadcopter.

So... you're saying the government can give 3rd parties permission to make a porno starring my hypothetical wife without her knowledge or consent?

well...could she have been seen by a passing helicopter?
Would you need permission from the county to do flights?

Dave2 wrote:n5wd's scenario is a drone getting video for a real-estate company, which would necessarily be somewhat close-up. A passing helicopter likely wouldn't be able to resolve the same level of detail.

KD5NRH wrote:

Dave2 wrote:n5wd's scenario is a drone getting video for a real-estate company, which would necessarily be somewhat close-up. A passing helicopter likely wouldn't be able to resolve the same level of detail.

I don't know when your last looked at telephoto lenses, but I've seen a group of researchers testing out their camera by reading the *frame* of a license plate over a mile away.

Dave2 wrote:If a random helicopter was "just passing by" and had their optics zoomed in that far, the resulting video would just be a blur, no?

philip964 wrote: Texas has a pretty strict Drone Law already. You cannot fly a drone over private property without permission. Filming private property from a drone without permission is a big no no.

cb1000rider wrote:

philip964 wrote: Texas has a pretty strict Drone Law already. You cannot fly a drone over private property without permission. Filming private property from a drone without permission is a big no no.

Can you provide a reference? I'm unaware of that law... I understand there was legislation that made it illegal to take photos of people or property in Texas via drone if the intent was to snoop, but I'm not aware on a prohibition of actual flight... (HB912 governs the photo taking)

My understanding of FAA rules is that they're not regulatory - yet. That is, how do you regulate a bunch of people that you're not licensing? Their stuff - at this time - is "best practice"... They do have pending rules, but I don't think they're in force yet...

If you want to complain about low flying fixed wing aircraft - the rule is 500' in sparsely populated areas. The rules also say "safe altitude" - most aircraft can't make a safe emergency landing from 500'. Different for helicopters. Different for float planes over water. I believe it's 1500' in populated areas.

KD5NRH wrote:

Dave2 wrote:If a random helicopter was "just passing by" and had their optics zoomed in that far, the resulting video would just be a blur, no?

Not necessarily; I've taken some very clear shots from moving trains and such.

KD5NRH wrote:Remember, minimum safe altitude over a sparsely populated area is 500', and there's no minimum cruising speed for a helicopter; they're not going to go faster than they can get good photos if that's the goal of the flight.

As for changing targets from whatever they originally set out to photograph, spotting a human form at that altitude would be easy.

ETA: That 500' number is for fixed wing aircraft. I forgot helicopters are generally allowed to go lower as long as due care is taken.

Dave2 wrote: Well, yes, but then we're talking about specifically spying on someone, which, as I said earlier, I think is already illegal.

Pawpaw wrote:If you're going to try to shoot one down, make sure you're using the right ammo!!!

KD5NRH wrote:

Dave2 wrote:If a random helicopter was "just passing by" and had their optics zoomed in that far, the resulting video would just be a blur, no?

Not necessarily; I've taken some very clear shots from moving trains and such. Remember, minimum safe altitude over a sparsely populated area is 500', and there's no minimum cruising speed for a helicopter; they're not going to go faster than they can get good photos if that's the goal of the flight. As for changing targets from whatever they originally set out to photograph, spotting a human form at that altitude would be easy.

ETA: That 500' number is for fixed wing aircraft. I forgot helicopters are generally allowed to go lower as long as due care is taken.