Jupiterian Local
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Jovian: Oh no people occasionally look at window in their immediate area around them. You see we made these wonderful inventions called blinds. I don't want any random passers by to casually glance through a TRANSPARENT WINDOW i close the blinds. Logic and common sense is amazing.
By your grossly flawed logic and bad example I should be calling the cops on my neighbors because they happen to look at my window on the apartment building we all live in as they walk up to it. Chances are very high they are going to see the window considering it is right on the front as you walk up to the building. Or anyone who dares to look at the building possibly even at my window for that matter they must be prying into my privacy...or not. Again it actually takes effort to invade someones privacy.
Again since you failed in both common sense and common logic. There is a massive difference in a passing view of something around them vs someone deliberately peering through a window.
Who watches the watchmen?
Jupiterian Local
No, I'm not saying that you should be calling the cops every time someone happens to glance in the general direction of your window. I'm saying that you'd be justified in being upset if someone came up to your window and looked inside to see what's going on in your house. A drone is a surveillance device — its sole purpose is you let the operator see things without having to go there in person. As such, a drone loitering in the area of your home, occasionally passing by your windows, is analogous to a person with a camera loitering in the area of your home, occasionally looking in your windows. Both raise serious tresspassing and privacy concerns, the only difference is that it's easier to get away with it if you're using a drone.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Your poor example does entail becoming unreasonably upset or unreasonably seeking to restrict something casual and common. If you become upset because someone casually happens to look at the general direction of your window you have issues.
A drone is not strictly limited to or strictly defined as a surveillance device. That is grossly inaccurate and only further shows a total lack of understanding of even the basic technology at play on your part.
A RC craft with a camera mounted on it allowing the user to pilot the craft more effectively pilot or control the craft. We call those toys they have existed for decades as nothing but toys. Almost nothing has changed in the grand scale of the technology in use on these RC planes, boats, ground vehicles, and helicopters mounting cameras.
They are no more surveillance devices then an iphone camera is. It is just called a camera. While Cameras can be used as a surveillance device not all cameras are. Again you have to put active effort into using a device in a fairly specific manner for it to be that.
It is not analogous to a person standing outside your window and looking in with a camera not even close. A device or person simply moving through an environment that can see around itself is not nefarious by any stretch of the imagination or analogous to someone making an active effort to peek through a window. This is the third time this has been pointed out. Nothing you have said changes that.
It is a very significant difference between seeing something in passing which by way is a fact of life everyone just has to suck it up because it is inevitably going to happen. Its why people have curtains and other things to block the view through a window. You know a basic technology probably as ancient as windows. Someone walking up to a window and looking through it is an active effort and requires deliberate action not accidental action and is a lot different then glancing at a window.
No matter how hard you want that fact to disappear it won't go away.
Who watches the watchmen?
betaalpha
I'm not quite sure what you folks have started to argue about. I presume that both of you would consider that buzzing a drone right outside an upstairs window with the camera looking directly at and rather obviously harrassing or filming someone inside would be a crime, just as it would be if it were a guy who had climbed up to do the same (hilarious sitcom-style Contrived Coincidence aside). And both of you would consider that a drone just buzzing through a residential district would, by itself, not constitute a crime. And there's a huge spectrum of scenarios inbetween these points.
Could you clarify roughly where you stand regarding that spectrum? I wouldn't be that surprised if it were about the same spot.
edited 19th Nov '14 12:21:24 AM by betaalpha
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Beta: As long someone is not doing something like hovering outside a window of someones house and are just flying around what basically amounts to a fancy toy that existed for decades I see no logical or legal issue out side of being an aerial hazard. Simply applying the same rules and laws we use govern RC craft as toys and hobbies pretty much covers private ownership of drones as that is exactly what they are.
edited 19th Nov '14 12:36:04 AM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Jupiterian Local
At this point, I'm mostly annoyed that Tuefel apparently feels it's appropriate to be condescending, and dismissive toward anyone who doesn't share his opinion. I believe that using drones on private property near private residences constitutes a legitimate privacy concern. He does not. That's fine, reasonable people can have differences of opinion. What's pissing me off is the fact that Tuefel feels the need to belittle and insult my position because obviously he's right and obviously anyone who disagrees is wrong.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
I could say the same about you.
Who watches the watchmen?
HGW XX/7
Simmer down both of you. If you think someone's being unreasonable or condescending, holler to the mods.
edited 19th Nov '14 1:19:47 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
And stop talking about each other, please. This is a thread about drones, not the people in it.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
V
...but drones don't have people in them! ![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
Let's stop this droning on and find something else to talk about on-topic, right?
Keep Rolling On
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
You sir are horrid. I never knew drones could be true tools of PU Nishment.
Who watches the watchmen?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Sweet more Raptor Cams. Not quite a drone though but still interesting.
Hmm but that is an interesting concept though. If you could find a way to direct an animal and strap a cam to them. I have heard of it supposedly being done with military working dogs. Sort of a dog mounted helmet cam.
Who watches the watchmen?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
You can own your own underwater exploration drone
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I know some rescue dogs get a collar-cam these days. It helps: the dog just lets loose and follows their nose. Somebody else pinpoints things of interest to look at while on a laptop and therefore letting the dog do their thing in dog-time rather than being in the way and slowing them down while they're trying to squeeze into interesting places to catch the scents they need to follow until they alert-bark as they're supposed to when they find somebody.
edited 25th Nov '14 10:15:01 AM by Euodiachloris
Professional Forum Ninja
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
That ought to go over well.
Who watches the watchmen?
Chapter 1 (Discontinued)
Is an RC helicopter with a knife taped to it considered a drone? My friend says yes, but I say no. Drones use bombs, and don't clumsily stab things. Despite their vague similarities, drones are drones because they are effective, and civilians are not allowed to have them.
Warning: This poster is known to the state of California to cause cancer. Cancer may not be available in your country.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
All I've got now is this image of some Marines trying to fly a knife copter into a cave to annoy some Taliban.
It's funny.
Oh really when?
Chapter 1 (Discontinued)
When he said drone, I thought he meant a weaponized RC plane that would fire projectiles at cans, elegant, black, and striking fear into the hearts of people it flies over, before they are set ablaze a die.
Instead, it was a little orange helicopter with a knife duct-taped to it running into the wall and stabbing a target lazily.
Bwrrrrrrrrrrrrr-thump-bwrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-thump-bwrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-thump
Warning: This poster is known to the state of California to cause cancer. Cancer may not be available in your country.
rollin' on dubs
RE: Drone center at Fort Bliss. That is good news. There is a ton of restricted airspace around Fort Bliss and McGregor Range. I'm hearing that people are getting jobs working in and around where SGS plans on putting this complex.
RE: Stabby drone. Eh, it's a stretch, but yeah, technically it's a drone. Of course stabby RC copter is more of an "ow, quit it" weapon that a practical one.
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48
Jupiterian Local
My understanding between a "drone" and a "remote-control vehicle" is that the former has things like cameras and GPS and self-controlling capabilities that mean you don't have to be able to see the vehicle to control it, while an RC vehicle has to remain in line of sight of the operator or they'll lose control.
Basically, if you have to be able to see the thing to steer it, it's an RC vehicle. If it's beaming back pictures that allow you to control it, or it's capable of controlling itself without direct human input, then it's a drone.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
V
Although in the media, the distinction seems to have disappeared.
Heathrow plane in near miss with drone
The CAA has not identified the airline or how close the drone came to the plane, which can carry 180 people. It gave the incident an "A" rating, meaning a "serious risk of collision". This is the highest incident rating the CAA can give.
Investigators were unable to identify the drone, which did not appear on air traffic control radar and disappeared after the encounter.
"In distress", my ass.
Although in the media, the distinction seems to have disappeared.
The media makes distinctions? 
Remember Just Plane Wrong, Tanks, but No Tanks, Failed To Pay Shipping Charges, and others of that nature exist.
edited 8th Dec '14 6:33:50 AM by Nohbody
All your safe space are belong to Trump