I'm encouraged by the tone and the depth of understanding here. It's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than anything I've read in the national US media! http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f7e-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html?hpid=z4
Hmmm. I'm not sure I'm as comfortable as you are with this article, Steve. For example: “Drones make it possible to invade privacy without even trespassing,” said Amie Stepanovich, a surveillance expert at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “This is a real concern.” Now substitute for "drones" these phrases: 1. Telephoto lenses. 2. Light aircraft with people with cameras and telephoto lenses. 3. Helicopters with people with cameras and telephoto lenses. 4. People with ladders and cameras and telephoto lenses. 5. People in cars parked across the street with cameras and telephoto lenses. 6. The NSA's Prism program. 7. The Echelon system. (Google "echelon.") That's why we have laws protecting privacy and defining trespass. Tell me what's new, special, or of "real concern" about "drones" that isn't dwarfed by the items listed? Andy.
There's two sides to every coin, and I chose to hang my hat on the abundance of positive examples of UAV applications. The accompanying video is very positive, too. http://www.washingtonpost.com/postt...69e2c6-06b9-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_video.html
It was great to read that the largest user group is in Washington Dc but local counties and cities can create their own ordinances to prevent drone flying as well. I see restrictions on size, height, and intent. I could live with something like this for commercial use: 25 pound limits, 400 feet height limits, and no flying where privacy or safety is an issue... and no autonomous flying, copter must be line of sight. Of course this suits my needs...I'm sure others will disagree. But we should all be anticipating some sort of painful compromise when the FAA and others finally decide our future. jim
EPIC has a specific agenda and Amy is the point of the spear. Same message was carried to a US Senate hearing last year. EPIC clearly believes that for every new change in technology there should be a new law rather than enforce the laws on the books which already cover privacy. Rather than targeting the device target the intent. And the intent part is already on the books at the state and local levels.
I'm the Director of Education for the DC Area Drone User Group. Ask me anything! I am responsible for educational efforts, like teaching people how to build multicopters and technical support and doing drone demos and teaching people the right way to fly them. I find that the kind of people getting into multicopters are way more novice to the R/C domain, they not only make rookie piloting errors but they make serious errors of judgement like flying over crowds or trying to fly around in restricted zones or trespassing on property.
I'm also one of the guys interviewed in the video. The footage of GMU campus appearing in the video were raw clips I sent to the reporter from my GoPro. I also uploaded some of that footage here:
Hi Christopher! That was a great piece, and congrats on helping a reporter to produce a calm, lucid, reasonably well-researched piece of journalism. That's a relief after all the garbage that's polluted the airwaves.
Chris and everyone with the DC DUG are great sources of info, and a seriously friendly community of people to get started in the industry. I moved up from Florida to find the group more welcoming than ever expected. Being so close to the FAA and with such a large community, I really feel we have a shot at pushing the legislation in our favor, so long as the right arguments are made, and the idiocy is kept to a minimum.... Here the Washington Post has done a great job of providing examples of other invasions of privacy, and Chris is definitely a great source for info if you ever need help! If you're ever in DC hit us up! we're always willing to go fly....