In one hot off the press...
A BOARD showing a G-string-clad woman has been removed after she became the accidental attraction in a real estate advertising campaign for a house sale in Victoria, Australia.
An ambitious agent enlisted a drone to take an aerial photograph of the property, which includes a sweeping image of the beach.
“I heard a noise and then I saw this odd thing flying around and thought it was a kid’s toy. It hovered around and luckily I was face down at the time,” Ms Lingard said.
But Steve Walsh of Eview real estate defended the use of drones for aerial photography and says he did not realise Ms Lingard had ended up on the sale board.
“It’s something that Google does and people use that everyday,” Mr Walsh said.
Mod notes: Privacy concerns aside, this touches on the use of drones by uncertified operators and flouting the regulations that genuine operators must abide by. In all the reporting on the incident, none of the media has focused on this. Also, this follows on from a recent television program that flouted the rules and let one of the presenters fly in an area where it shouldn't have happened. CASA are investigating this as well, with one could only imagine, some serious repercussions for the operator.
Comments
There is a level of hypocracy here though, which I think is why people in our community get peed off - Google already has a reasonable resolution picture of her house, and it's available to *millions* of web viewers, for free. And that's before we even consider street view. And the fact that most people have facebook accounts, yet complain about privacy violations.
Yes, "drones" provide an accessible way of privacy invasion, but like all the other technology before it such invasions are incidental; anyone who *wants* to invade your piracy can do so far more easily than using a drone.
No, we're not beauty queens but we are also not the ones stripping down in an open area and laying callously about.
You make your choices and live with it. She shouldn't try to exact a toll on others because she chose poorly.
We are eventually going to have to deal realistically with the simple fact that our multicopters provide plenty of opportunity for unintentional and intentional invasion of privacy.
This is already a huge issue for the public and the media, both of whom immediately leap on a molehill of an event to produce a mountain of concern.
Drones are news and invasion of privacy is the main hot ticket item.
The reality is that tiny little quadcopters with cameras and even cheap FPV are multiplying like rabbits and over this next year there are going to be a lot of incidents like this (an worse) no matter what we do.
It would really be a good idea if we in DIYDrones could at least come up with some sort of coordinated policy (concept - statement - rule) in relation to this issue, if we don't get out in front of it, it is certainly going to attack us from behind.
And dismissing it or ridiculing the person who's privacy is being presented as having been invaded isn't going to help.
I know that airplanes have been flying over nude and semi nude people from years (nude beaches were always a popular flight path) and nothing much has been made of it.
But now we have a situation where a $150.00 FPV Hubsan flown by a 12 year old kid can literally be looking in the neighbors bathroom or bedroom window and there are going to be tens of thousands of them out there.
If you don't think this is going to be a serious problem, you'd better think again.
Safety is going to be a big deal, but eventually the privacy and security thing will surpass it.
The question is what can we do about it?
Best Regards,
Gary
Guys, I think the comments on her personal appearance uncalled for. Let's talk about the subject of privacy, not her modelling credentials, I'm sure you're not beauty queens either.
A fine probably and not much. Actually Bodily Harm was only $1700 see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-13/drone-operator-at-geraldton-m...
[comment removed by moderators]
[comment removed by moderators]
Oh no! Somebody captured a CGA quality image of you! Good heavens. Hopefully none of your neighbours have a decent camera. Considering their vantage point over your fence, they're more of a threat to your privacy.
Lady, nobody actually cares about watching you.
@Jerry - Unless you have been flying illegally there's no reason this would effect your flying. Keep it safe and all should be fine. Indeed, the article doesn't mention anything illegal either. Although, as the moderator mentioned, it's likely the operator wasn't certified for commercial operations.
I claim the term 'collateral imaging' as the phrase to employ in this situation.
A++ for Gimp. I process all my ancient mag scans for my Jack Headley research with it.
One day my skill and its capability will get in sync.
-=Doug
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next