The New York Times has picked up on the theme we were discussing last week, of amateurs using UAVs (or FPV aircraft) to monitor police activity at protests.
An important point raised in the article:
Despite the quality of the images, though, RoboKopter might not see a rush of orders from newsrooms just yet.
One reason is that while there is no doubt that similar aerial videos of the Occupy Wall Street protests would have gotten widespread airplay on American television this week, it is unlikely that the New York Police Department, which closed the airspace above Lower Manhattan during Tuesday’s raid, would have taken kindly to a flock of drone journalists.
Comments
The U.S. definitely needs citizen- and journalist-controlled drones. Just look at how they treat protesters in recent days. Peaceful people are being beaten with batons, pepper-sprayed on campuses, thrown out under false security pretext from Zucotti Park... The "beacon of democracy" badly needs to learn a few things about democracy.
1 even inventing the lightest material on earth will not prevent some people using it to kill/hurt others
2 no drone over crowds? Is this also a rule for the US government (Afganistan & police drones) or is this rule more of a guideline for their actions?
3 Everybody is accounted for their own actions. Take your responcibility.
4 i'm so glad not to be living in paranoid USA ;-)
@bGatti
The way the laws are currently, suits hobbists perfectly.
However if you plan to do a business,
a) you better have some insurance
b)it's your responsibility to guarantee public safety
c)must follow all the laws.
I don't think innovation is stifled at all. A perfect example is this site, and what Chris has accomplished with it.
I never read all of the responses. That said, I am of the opinion that this was 'cool' all the same to get the coverage, but irresponsible. Does the pilot have a gazillion dollars in liability? A 8lb copter coming down from 200ft is going to kill. I'm sure lots of people fly over individuals, but I'm not so sure on such a scale like this.
Might as well get used to the Tension - UAV's, like nearly every act of innovation, is nearly outlawed with only a small sliver of tolerance on the margins.
Add to this list:
1. Shipping a PC Board with a microcontroller (FCC regs requires tests which can only be performed for thousands of dollars) (Small sliver - if it's "not quite finished" then it's the consumers responsibility to "test it".)
2. Laser anything: must be pitiful or its verbotin.
3. Flying anything: must not employee people - (reminds me of the Soviet Union.)
So sit in your house and watch tv - because anything else is highly suspect behavior.
Firstly let me apologise to Chris who right now might be feeling that I have been rude and made a personal attack. That was certainly not my intention and it is also not my intention to undermine, in any way, the fantastic things that you have achieved for our hobby. I guess it is difficult for you not to see my words as hollow but they really are not. I am sorry.
If you are reading this and have been offended by my poorly delivered comments then I also apologies to you. It is also not my intention to become a self appointed lone censor. I don’t want to prevent this type of post, I simply want to ensure the proper warning and context is clearly stated.
It has been said that stupid people will do stupid things but we still have to be role models. Some people are not stupid they are just young and can’t be expected to know better. I think the strength of my conviction and my concern at the lack of similar voices made me too loud today, but I do feel that I was trying to make valid points for the good of our community. I do care about the community and I author of a free product for that very reason.
Whilst reading the rules of the site today I found some more eloquent words that I hope will allow you to hear in a more moderate form the points I have been trying to make.
These words are an extract of the full document found here http:///www.diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3...
DIY Drones is explicitly built as a social network, which means that the community is as important as the content. We're also focused on the most accessible end of the amateur UAV world, with the aim of potentially including high school students.
This means we emphasize amateur UAV projects that are:
3) Safe: We follow the current interpretation of the FAA guidelines on small UAVs. Recreational use (non-commercial), under 400 ft altitude, line of sight, "pilot in the loop" and onboard safety systems that always allow for manual control in the case of malfunction. We're building experimental platforms that demonstrate autonomy and the capacity to do real useful UAV work, but we test them in controlled settings. If you want to fly miles out of sight or map cities, we're going to assume you've got the proper FAA clearance or we don't want to know about it.
7) No discussion of illegal or harmful use of UAVs will be tolerated. Responsible use of UAVs is at the core of our mission. That means conforming with all laws in the United States, where this site is based, and insisting that our members elsewhere follow the laws of their own countries. In addition, we feel that part of our responsibility it to help the relevant authorities understand what's possible with amateur UAVs, so they can make better-informed policies and laws. So we have encouraged all relevant regulators, defense agencies and law enforcement agencies to become members here and even participate to help them do that, and many have. In addition, if we see any discussion of UAV use that we feel is potentially illegal or intended to do harm, we will bring it to the attention to the relevant authorities, and will comply with any legal request they make for information about users (although we don't know much that isn't public; see the next item).
Once again, sorry to any offended I will say no more unless invited, Fab
Robert, if they didn't have the video of Dziekanski, the police would have covered up the whole thing, instead of convening an inquiry. So in that way it was beneficial.
As for the NYPD link, people were arrested for crossing police lines, without press passes. It's not illegal to film the police, there are just strict rules.
@Ellison, still think that it's not illegal to film the police?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/nypd-occupy-press-pass/?ut...
They benefitted from video? How many people have been formally charged and been tried?
In the case of the G20 riots, I think the protesters would be safer with a drone directly over their heads. Might help prevent police abuse.
Well, I'm all for monitoring the police and Drone Journalism, but I'm just saying it should be done safely. Technology advancement is no excuse to disregard public safety.
Robert, the Dziekanski case is a prime example of how a bystander's use of amateur video is helping to monitor the police. I'm not arguing that they don't need monitoring. I was just saying that people in Canada don't get arrested and their videos confiscated by police for no valid reason. As in the Vancouver case, the police actually benefited from amateur video.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next