“Everything was fine, except the left rear motor with a bullet hole"

April 26, 2017 9:54 AM

Ars Technica: Man takes drone out for a sunset flight, drone gets shot down

“I took two pictures, then I heard the gunshot, and all of a sudden my drone started spiraling down—I’m sitting there trying to keep it aloft and there was no lift.”

Is it okay to shoot down your neighbor's drone? Under the law, you just shot at an airplane, but the case law is unclear.

Aerial drones occupy a strange legal gray area; classified as aircraft by the FAA (previously), yet also potentially subject to trespassing violations (previously). Recent cases of drones being downed by gunfire have been subject to federal lawsuits, subsequently dismissed.

posted by Existential Dread (242 comments total)

Shooting down drones with guns is cowardly and dangerous. We should obviously be using bolas.
posted by gurple at 10:00 AM on April 26, 2017 [33 favorites]

As One World Trade Center is 1776 feet high, isn't that precedent for property boundaries going at least that high in the US?

Granted, immediate destruction of property upon accidental trespass also doesn't seem to be legal any more than you're allowed to shoot someone's car if they pull into your driveway. But why should someone's toy being a remote control *aircraft* factor into this?
posted by explosion at 10:01 AM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

S'America. Anything you do with a gun is inherently legal.
posted by Artw at 10:05 AM on April 26, 2017 [18 favorites]

Typically it's not legal to discharge firearms within the city limits.
posted by thelonius at 10:07 AM on April 26, 2017 [8 favorites]

“It didn’t hit the ground as hard as it could have,” Jones said. “When it hit, it broke the left landing gear arm, snapped the molding off the Inspire. But it was still running. Didn’t damage batteries, rotors were intact. Everything was fine, except the left rear motor with a bullet hole in it.”

Or, you know, perhaps "thank God it didn't crash on to my neighbour's property "where young children were playing in the backyard" would have been better.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 10:09 AM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

You know what SHOULD be illegal??? Believing that anything you're doing, or the sight of your naked body, is so appealing and interesting that your neighbor is covertly trying to get photos...which justifies your firing a gun at his property..

With that logic, if someone walks into my house with a phone that has a camera, I can shoot it out of his/her hands.
posted by HuronBob at 10:10 AM on April 26, 2017 [8 favorites]

But why should someone's toy being a remote control *aircraft* factor into this?

But why should someone's toy being a remote control flying camera that can spy on you and your property factor into this? FTFY.
posted by hippybear at 10:10 AM on April 26, 2017 [34 favorites]

Sounds like a job for SKYWALL

* cue patriotic music *
posted by blue_beetle at 10:11 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

This is actually really interesting, though. Is a drone actually an aircraft for purposes of these laws that punish damage to aircraft?

"(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;"

Well it's definitely not commercial, but maybe it's in the "special aircraft jurisdiction"?

"An aircraft is "in flight" from the moment when all external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened for disembarkation..."

Can drones be considered "in flight" without having doors or embarkation?

Yes, the FAA will punish you for operating a drone as an aircraft, but it doesn't immediately follow that someone who damages your drone is subject to the laws that punish someone for interfering with aircraft.

Which, honestly, doesn't surprise me. Civilian toys and gadgets often get all of the restrictions and none of the protections. Think of how your electronic devices are certified with the FCC to accept interfering transmissions, but not emit them.

I wouldn't expect the FAA to be punishing damage to drones under federal law anytime soon, no matter what the guy who's hawking Drone Law Review wants us to believe.
posted by explosion at 10:13 AM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

Or, you know, perhaps "thank God it didn't crash on to my neighbour's property "where young children were playing in the backyard" would have been better.

Ditto the bullets.
posted by Artw at 10:13 AM on April 26, 2017 [27 favorites]

As long as someone is paying for the video footage, it's commerce and shouldn't be restricted unless there's a gold fringe on the drone. Besides, the government can't create laws that govern your soul!
posted by blue_beetle at 10:14 AM on April 26, 2017 [20 favorites]

I think it's time to decide what's worth protecting, encouraging, or freely allowing on a more particular basis, rather than trying to make rules based on large classes of items that don't accurately classify the range of intentions, investment, and harms that are possible or likely with modern culture and technology.

Whether this thing belongs to my neighbor or not is not enough information to decide policy.
posted by amtho at 10:18 AM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

I've got no sympathy for this guy, although I do have reservations about firing guns of any sort without any considerations of where those bullets will land --- if a shot hits a drone, then yay! downed drone, but did that shot stay inside the downed drone or did it just pass through? And if it passed through the drone or missed entirely, where did that round end up? There are way too many proven instances of people being injured or even killed by shots some idiot fired "harmlessly" into the air.

Too many drone owners feel that they can fly their camera-equipped toys anywhere & anytime they please, without regard for the privacy or safety of others; witness the various drones that have caused near-hits with commercial aircraft, or interfered with fire-fighting situations, or dammit the fool who has been flying one from my condo's parking lot and hovering the damn thing outside resident's windows (and I'm on the 16th floor of a highrise).
posted by easily confused at 10:18 AM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

Ditto the bullets.

A rain of bullets is as american as apple pie and right of passage for every child. A rain of drone, not so much.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:18 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

Some time back, a small, presumably hobbyist, drone hovered outside my apartment window at night. I only noticed it because of some lights it carried. When I ran over to the window, it darted off.

So, the fact that I now have to think twice about having my shades up? I'd shoot that fucker down in a heartbeat.
posted by the sobsister at 10:19 AM on April 26, 2017 [62 favorites]

But why should someone's toy being a remote control flying camera that can spy on you and your property and also features one or more exposed blades rotating at several thousand rotations per minute factor into this?

FTFY. They're inherently dangerous, largely-unregulated aircraft, and the fact that you buy them at a hobbyist store rather than from Boeing doesn't mean you get to fly your extremely dangerous, quasi-legal toy in my back yard without risking some pushback.

The "shoot it with a gun!" part troubles me, but I'm for damn sure going to invest in some high-test aquatic netting, in anticipation of the day some chucklehead decides to fly one of these things low enough that I can hit it with an improvised bola.
posted by Mayor West at 10:22 AM on April 26, 2017 [22 favorites]

I wouldn't expect the FAA to be punishing damage to drones under federal law anytime soon, no matter what the guy who's hawking Drone Law Review wants us to believe.

I don't believe it's the FAA's jurisdiction to punish anyone for destructive behavior. When's the last time the FAA fined or arrested an airline passenger for being unruly? The FAA can levy fines and revoke permits from operators, owners, airline employees, etc., but they're not a law enforcement agency.

Too many other drone owners feel that they can fly their camera-equipped toys anywhere & anytime they please, without regard for the privacy or safety of others

Then they are violating FAR Part 107, which imposes operational restrictions on UAV operation. However, these regulations are not really concerned with issues of privacy, property, etc. Part 107 is designed to reduce the safety impact by drones on the rest of the NAS and public on the ground. So, flying over groups of people is expressly prohibited at this point in time. Flying at night is prohibited. Entering controlled airspace is prohibited. Sounds like the operator in this story may have busted Part 107 by flying too close to a bunch of kids, but it's hard to say.

I'm working on a program for the FAA to better define some of these rules!
posted by backseatpilot at 10:24 AM on April 26, 2017 [15 favorites]

With that logic, if someone walks into my house with a phone that has a camera, I can shoot it out of his/her hands.

If they do so uninvited, in a lot of places you can shoot the person, not just their camera. More properly analogous, if someone busts into my house or stands at the window with a camcorder, you can be damn sure I'm on my way out there to fuck up said camera.
posted by Dysk at 10:26 AM on April 26, 2017 [11 favorites]

Someone re-edit that scene of Betty Draper with the birds, except she is shooting down drones.
posted by drezdn at 10:32 AM on April 26, 2017 [11 favorites]

With that logic, if someone walks into my house with a phone that has a camera, I can shoot it out of his/her hands.

Uh, it doesn't work if you invite him.
posted by Servo5678 at 10:34 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

I propose a rule of capture for drones.
posted by jpe at 10:35 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

Mod note: Couple of comments deleted - I get that people are against drones but let's skip the violence-against-drone-operators thing, jokey or not.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 10:36 AM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Until drone operators can be identified during their violations, I imagine there's going to be a lot more of this. And even if the FAA requires legible ID tags on the thing, jerks are just going to remove them when they're being jerks. Honestly, it really does sound like guns are the answer here.
posted by turkeybrain at 10:44 AM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

I am not thinking a gun is a good plan, but I am making mental notes on learning to use a slingshot.

What happens if you net the stupid thing and smash it to bits? I like that idea as well but wonder if the tools using these things would sue you for destruction of property.
posted by winna at 10:46 AM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Can I blind it (the drone, not the operator) with a laser?
posted by Confess, Fletch at 10:46 AM on April 26, 2017

Uh, it doesn't work if you invite him.

I thought that only counted for Vampires ?
posted by k5.user at 10:47 AM on April 26, 2017 [9 favorites]

this reminds me of newspaper accounts from the good old days when outraged farmers would shoot at passing motorists in their devilwagons
posted by entropicamericana at 10:55 AM on April 26, 2017 [18 favorites]

This is one of those cases where I have little sympathy for either party. If you send your drone snooping on your neighbor's property, I can't blame them for wanting it gone. And shooting at drones is also stupid and potentially lethal, both from stray bullets and from the drone crashing out of control.
posted by tavella at 10:56 AM on April 26, 2017 [7 favorites]

Once when I was a kid, I got soooooo bored waiting for the internet that I read this book about how we apply and modify old legal concepts to modern scenarios, and the titular example is the question of how high up property rights extend.

That book was published in 1964, so I'm assuming they were talking about planes and helicopters, but the basic principles should be similar at least. I mean, obviously, you can't go defending your property as high up as a plane would fly, but you should be able to if someone is somehow levitating an inch or so above the ground, so there's got to be some kind of line you draw somewhere between what is and isn't trespassing.

Is it a clear height, and if so, based on what? The potential to clock someone in the head? It can't be visibility probably, because you can take really clear pictures from really high up. Maybe there needs to be some kind of intent aspect that allows people to use airspace to transport things but not to spy on people at various heights.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:58 AM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

Drones flying around will probably be just as likely to be owned by government, police, or corporations. So, I think we won't be able to always tell who they'll be owned by.

In the end, if you shoot down one of those drones you'll probably just receive a bill or fine in the mail.
posted by FJT at 10:58 AM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Can I blind it (the drone, not the operator) with a laser?

Most UAVs do not use optical cameras for navigation and control. Multirotors most commonly use a combination of GPS and inertial nav to control the vehicle. If your goal was to bring the UAV down, jamming the GPS may cause the autopilot to attempt a landing (some, not all UAVs have this ability). GPS jamming is wildly illegal. There's not really a way to disable the inertial system.

If your goal is to disable the camera so the drone can still fly but can't take photos, I guess you could try a laser. Pointing lasers at airplanes is also wildly illegal.
posted by backseatpilot at 10:58 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

You know what SHOULD be illegal??? Believing that anything you're doing, or the sight of your naked body, is so appealing and interesting that your neighbor is covertly trying to get photos...which justifies your firing a gun at his property..

But that is true a lot of the time. Maybe not for you, and I've happily aged out of it now, but people do that A LOT.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:00 AM on April 26, 2017 [8 favorites]

What I need is a shotgun that accurately fires out a wad of string that will tangle in the drone rotors.
posted by hippybear at 11:01 AM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

Because puncturing a LiPo battery won't start a fire or anything. Heaven help you if it goes down on a neighbor's roof an touches it off...
posted by The Power Nap at 11:03 AM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

How about paintballs filled with electrically conductive salt water?

I foresee a potential new market opening up.
posted by jamjam at 11:13 AM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

So, the fact that I now have to think twice about having my shades up? I'd shoot that fucker down in a heartbeat.

Yeah. We don't have any curtains on two sides of the house because nobody should be back there. Both bathrooms have windows on those sides. Annoying. Then it happened again.

There was no prior plan so we quickly decided that housemate should continue her strip tease to distract it.

The kids had never shot down an aircraft before. It was quite the barrage. The livestock did their coyote drill and ran for the barn and in the mad bustle of the moment we forgot about what the dogs would do. The one that is twice as fast as the other two is now called "Lucky Dog." It almost nailed her and did start a fire.

The remains are in the shed. Nobody ever came for it. I'm supposed to do some cybernetic taxidermy and mount it on a plaque that we can hang over the fireplace, but I've been busy making bolo rounds.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 11:14 AM on April 26, 2017 [21 favorites]

Any day now, someone will do something colossally stupid with a drone. Like, 'every cable TV channel focussed' stupid.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. Maybe it won't! Admittedly, I've been thinking this for a couple years at least now.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 11:19 AM on April 26, 2017

If a stalker drone is close enough to be peeping in your window, it's probably close enough to get coated in long-range wasp spray with an oil-based formula that doesn't wash off of glass even after 6 months of thunderstorms.
posted by CyberSlug Labs at 11:20 AM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

I guess you could also put string in those paintballs.
posted by jamjam at 11:21 AM on April 26, 2017

Some interesting ideas here, including using trained birds of prey!
TL;DR shotgun with fine birdshot looks most practical
posted by Redhush at 11:21 AM on April 26, 2017

Would silly string bring down a drone?
posted by hippybear at 11:22 AM on April 26, 2017

Two thoughts:

1) Violating privacy is harmful separately from bodily injury potential. People are talking about the danger of the rotors and batteries, but focusing on that too much takes attention away from the real problem of making privacy concerns more than vague "concerns". If you think about suicides following cyberbullying incidents, among other stories, it helps make this harm clearer -- but we need to do a better job of communicating that.

2) Putting this in terms of property ownership vs. air rights ignores the fact that renters have rights to privacy also. This is critical, especially as there are some people trying to normalize the idea that fewer and fewer families are owning their homes.
posted by amtho at 11:22 AM on April 26, 2017 [15 favorites]

Shooting a drone, hitting it with a net, blinding it with a laser, jamming its GPS or radio control link, or hitting it with a slingshot are all waaay more likely to result in an injury or unintended property damage, possibly severe, compared to just flying the drone. Just so you know what you're advocating for.
posted by jjwiseman at 11:26 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

You do realize that most hobbyist drones weigh under 5 lbs and are mostly made of plastic, right?
posted by hippybear at 11:27 AM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

All drones should be registered and that registration should be public record. That and a few lawsuits and/or charges of trespassing will sort this out in a jiffy.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:29 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

If you have a strong stomach, go ahead and do an image search on "drone propeller injury". And then search youtube for "lipo fire."
posted by jjwiseman at 11:29 AM on April 26, 2017

Wow, an Inspire 2? Yeah, if you're flying something that size over someone's property, you should probably get permission. I mean, a Hubsan I could understand (though I'm usually pretty careful about where the fences are when racing mine round my garden), but an Inspire's huge, not to mention expensive!
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 11:30 AM on April 26, 2017

All drones should be registered and that registration should be public record.

Good news!
posted by backseatpilot at 11:33 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

All drones should be registered and that registration should be public record. That and a few lawsuits and/or charges of trespassing will sort this out in a jiffy.

FYI, all drones that weigh 0.55 lbs or more must be registered, and display their registration.
posted by jjwiseman at 11:34 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

If you have a strong stomach, go ahead and do an image search on "drone propeller injury".

They are indeed horrifying. Which is why we should probably not be in support of people having the right to fly their unlicensed helicopters at ground level, which we're effectively doing by declaring that violence against drones is punishable by the FAA. I see the damned things everywhere, and I live inside an exclusion zone because I'm less than five miles from an airport. The Feds pretty clearly aren't going to enforce the laws against operating them, which means bolas for everyone.
posted by Mayor West at 11:37 AM on April 26, 2017 [7 favorites]

2) Putting this in terms of property ownership vs. air rights ignores the fact that renters have rights to privacy also. This is critical, especially as there are some people trying to normalize the idea that fewer and fewer families are owning their homes.

I am not a lawyer of any sort, but when people talk about 'property rights' in terms of privacy and control of a space, it doesn't always imply ownership, but residency. True, property owners have certain rights of access and control of properties they've rented, and tenants do have their own legal rights to privacy, depending on where they are. But none of the rights of property owners are automatically transferred to randos flying drones, so when you're talking about third parties, the rights of property owners vs. tenants probably aren't all that different.

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer or a law-talker by any stretch, but sometimes I've found the best way to troll for expert explanations is to speculate about things out loud, so they can come around and yell at you for being wrong.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:38 AM on April 26, 2017

Perhaps it's because I have never owned any real estate, but I find the obsession some people have with "property", in the land and boundaries sense, to be disturbing. Like really? Crossing an imaginary line on the ground, in your opinion, justifies shooting at people and things? Really?

The collective freakout over drones seems really misplaced and kneejerk to me. There's already cameras everywhere. Traffic cameras, cop cameras, security cameras, phone cameras, and even spy satellites. If you imagine your back yard is "private" you're woefully mistaken.

Perhaps the anti-drone thing is related to the illusion of control? Like everyone knows, even if they don't like to think about it, that major governments have spy sats that can count your nose hairs, but that's safely abstract and distant, while a person with a drone is something you imagine you can control and stop?

I dunno. But all the shoot 'em down rhetoric is disturbing.
posted by sotonohito at 11:39 AM on April 26, 2017 [11 favorites]

There's nothing we can do, directly, about state-sponsored surveillance. And whether we like it or not we have to have some level of faith that the results of that surveillance will not end up on /r/hot_noodz.

There is no such expectation of trust between private parties. So while the methods of dispatching of trespassing drones may vary in both applicability and appropriateness, the concept of not wanting some rando peering into your backyard and/or bathroom window shouldn't be controversial.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:44 AM on April 26, 2017 [16 favorites]

They are indeed horrifying. Which is why we should probably not be in support of people having the right to fly their unlicensed helicopters at ground level, which we're effectively doing by declaring that violence against drones is punishable by the FAA.

The FAA and others have done studies of drone safety. It turns out they're pretty safe in normal operation, and that's why we can still fly them. Here we're talking about people intentionally interfering with the operation of drones, which has completely different safety concerns.
posted by jjwiseman at 11:45 AM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

If a neighbors' tree branch hangs over my yard I can cut that portion off without asking. It seems the same logic should apply to drones.
posted by Sprocket at 11:46 AM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

There's already cameras everywhere.

No, there's not. There may be the possibility of cameras in a lot of public places, but they're not common in private spaces and neighborhoods. There's a reasonable expectation of privacy if your neighbors aren't horrible people -- and most people aren't.

The actual number of these things, and the likelihood of having privacy, matters. In 1972, there was a chance that there could be a camera in any given dressing room or hidden in a home -- but it was difficult to do, unlikely, and people generally didn't worry about it.
posted by amtho at 11:46 AM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

i'm a lot more worried about injury or death from an automobile crashing into me than a drone (as i should be, it's many, many times more likely) but few people seem to be concerned about the tens of thousands of people who die every year
posted by entropicamericana at 11:47 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

grumpybear69 The hate expressed against drones here doesn't seem especially related to any real suspicion of peeking in on people though. I mean, in the story linked the person was flying their drone along public spaces, not peeking in bedroom windows, and yet the overwhelming sentiment expressed here was a passionate hatred for the person and a desire to crush and destroy their possessions.

Property in the sense of invisible lines on the ground is, per this thread, inviolate and sacred and apparently extends upward several light years above your actual piece of dirt. Property in the sense of a thing a person owns is, per this thread, a thing to be joyfully smashed. That seems odd to me.

Privacy is a concern, yes. But it seems to be more something people are looking to as a means of justifying their hatred of drones rather than the origin of that hatred.
posted by sotonohito at 11:48 AM on April 26, 2017 [10 favorites]

Too many drone owners feel that they can fly their camera-equipped toys anywhere & anytime they please, without regard for the privacy or safety of others;

At my son's year-end "graduation party" (his class had "graduated" from Grade 8 and middle school to enter high school) at the beach, there was a drone hovering over the kids playing out in the water. Some of the girls (12 and 13) were wearing swimsuits.

So me and a group of dads had to tell the drone operator to fuck off. He was totally oblivious to our presence and, based on his clothing and other gadgets, had more money than brains.

That said, I think drones are cool, although I'm saving up for a fishing kayak first. Besides, there are now regulations in Canada that prohibit drones from being flown in urban areas, or within 9km of an airport. So that has grounded all drones in this city.
posted by My Dad at 11:48 AM on April 26, 2017

the overwhelming sentiment expressed here was a passionate hatred for the person and a desire to crush and destroy their possessions.

Has there been passionate hatred toward PERSONS expressed here? There have been implications made about the intent of strangers, but I don't see any real focussed HATE toward drone flyers. Only their behavior connected with their flying robots.
posted by hippybear at 11:52 AM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Some of the girls (12 and 13) were wearing swimsuits.

So me and a group of dads had to tell the drone operator to fuck off. He was totally oblivious to our presence and, based on his clothing and other gadgets, had more money than brains.

I have kids, and I find this a pretty disturbing reaction. Anyone has the right to take pictures of you and your kids when they're in public. Don't go to a public beach if you don't like that, and don't try to intimidate people involved in lawful activities.
posted by jjwiseman at 11:53 AM on April 26, 2017 [17 favorites]

I think if a person who normally isn't what you'd call a big fan of gun violence is cheering the destruction of a person's possessions via gun violence then it isn't wrong to assume a degree of hatred against the person in question.

"Hey Bob, I love you, that's why I crushed your car under a pile of rubble!" is not a sentence you will hear very often.
posted by sotonohito at 11:55 AM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

The varying reactions here are probably relevant to the recent thread re: generational markers.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:55 AM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

I'm also wondering if the reactions may break down along gender lines.
posted by epanalepsis at 11:56 AM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

Discharging firearms into the air, trying to hit a tiny, moving target is extremely dangerous for people and things on the ground.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 11:56 AM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

The urge to shoot drones does seem to be largely confined to older white men, yes.
posted by sotonohito at 11:59 AM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

I think if a person who normally isn't what you'd call a big fan of gun violence is cheering the destruction of a person's possessions via gun violence then it isn't wrong to assume a degree of hatred against the person in question.

That's not actually an equation I make in my mind, but if you do, I will respect that.

Also, your analogy about a car and a pile of rubble doesn't work. Maybe more like "Hey, Bob, I love you, but you keep parking your car across the end of my driveway. Sorry about the gun damage to your rear quarter."
posted by hippybear at 11:59 AM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Discharging firearms into the air, trying to hit a tiny, moving target is extremely dangerous for people and things on the ground.

Yes, but if the only alternative is putting up window shades? You see the conundrum.
posted by jjwiseman at 12:04 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

> The urge to shoot drones does seem to be largely confined to older white men, yes.

I'm a middle-aged woman of color, and I feel the urge to shoot the drones I see during the hawkwatch season, when I am up on the hill counting migrating hawks. The people flying the drones are definitely doing so illegally, because it's a national park. I've spoken (nicely!) to a couple and asked them to stop flying them. Both times went fine, though one guy's friend got kind of aggro (I ignored him). Doesn't stop me fantasizing about shooting them out of the sky.
posted by rtha at 12:04 PM on April 26, 2017 [16 favorites]

I cannot imagine any circumstances in which it would be even remotely possible to claim that shooting a person's car because it was over your property line didn't also involve a deep animosity for that person.

I don't know if this is because I don't own real estate, or because of something else, but if owning real estate really does turn otherwise normal and sensible people into people who think that the best, optimal, and perfectly justifiable, response to something crossing their property line is to shoot it or otherwise destroy it then as a society we probably ought to end the practice of private ownership of real estate as an effort to get people to stop being so destructively aggressive.
posted by sotonohito at 12:06 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

So, there are laws and there are public standards of behavior, right? So while it may be legal to hover a drone above a group of tween girls in their swimsuits, it is generally not socially acceptable. Replace the drone with a skeezy dude swimming near them and leering. Do you still think that is OK, even if it is legal?
posted by grumpybear69 at 12:06 PM on April 26, 2017 [6 favorites]

grumpybear69 I think you're wrongly assigning motives to people and making the unjustified assumption that people flying drones are doing it purely for voyeuristic reasons.

rtha I did say largely.
posted by sotonohito at 12:09 PM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

Swimming near them with a GoPro strapped to his forehead, looking everywhere he's looking, recording it all.

I mean, seriously.
posted by hippybear at 12:10 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

I have kids, and I find this a pretty disturbing reaction. Anyone has the right to take pictures of you and your kids when they're in public. Don't go to a public beach if you don't like that, and don't try to intimidate people involved in lawful activities.

Creepshots are illegal.
posted by My Dad at 12:14 PM on April 26, 2017 [8 favorites]

So, there are laws and there are public standards of behavior, right?

Yeah, and I think you're getting at a part of what makes this contentious: The law here is not in line with what a lot of people feel is an acceptable standard of behavior. The basis for the law has been around since the 40s, but it didn't really come up in most people's lives. Now that these situations occur more often, we're learning how it can trigger a pretty strong response.

Swimming near them with a GoPro strapped to his forehead, looking everywhere he's looking, recording it all.

I guess I can imagine situations where I wouldn't think twice about that, as well as situations where it would concern me. I think my response would have more to do with other aspects of the situation, and little to do with just the fact of a person using a camera.
posted by jjwiseman at 12:14 PM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

I'm saying when a drone hovers above a group of girls swimming, it is impossible to know what the operator's motives are.

The whole current of "people with drones should be able to film whatever they want, it's a free country and it's the LAW, your privacy be damned, also there is something wrong with you for not liking it" strikes me as very reminiscent of the alt-right's cooption of FREE SPEEEEEECH as a rallying cry for hateful behavior.
posted by grumpybear69 at 12:15 PM on April 26, 2017 [18 favorites]

Creepshots are illegal.

From the article: "But it’s not illegal to take the photo."
posted by jjwiseman at 12:15 PM on April 26, 2017 [7 favorites]

Actually, creepshots are not illegal. Oh, well. We were in the wrong, and the guy taking photos of children in swimsuits was right. What a world.
posted by My Dad at 12:16 PM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

But which is more "disturbing" -- creepshots, or telling a person to refrain from making creepshots? You will not convince me the fellow was not making creepshots. I was there and you were not.

This is relevant to this conversation because one of the chief complaints about drones is voyeurism.
posted by My Dad at 12:17 PM on April 26, 2017 [7 favorites]

> I'm saying when a drone hovers above a group of girls swimming, it is impossible to know what the operator's motives are.

Impossible? Of course it isn't. The operator's intentions are clear: they want to film the things they are filming. If they want to film treetops, they will be seen flying the drone over treetops.

If they want to film underage girls in swimsuits, we will know this because they will be...filming underage girls in swimsuits.

And anyway, intent isn't magic. Maybe their intention is to capture the way light refracts off water when it is disturbed by swimmers. That sounds cool, right? So ask the swimmers! Or their parents, if they are too young to consent! Problem solved.
posted by rtha at 12:19 PM on April 26, 2017 [10 favorites]

The collective freakout over drones seems really misplaced and kneejerk to me.

Both of my housemates have been assaulted in their own previous residences. They felt safe here until the drone came. They see private drones as recon for voyeurs, exes, rapists and worse. I don't really care what is legal. Slavery used to be.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 12:24 PM on April 26, 2017 [21 favorites]

You will not convince me the fellow was not making creepshots. I was there and you were not.

Sorry, I think I was reacting to the part where you described the operator as "oblivious to your presence", imagining that while talking to him you realized he was actually just playing with his new toy or whatever. I think it's good to go up and talk to someone whose intentions you're unsure of, and call the cops if you really think there's something unsavory going on.

I'm not as OK with an assumption that drones are typically instruments of creepy voyeurs, and should be dealt with via violence, threats, intimidation, etc.
posted by jjwiseman at 12:25 PM on April 26, 2017 [6 favorites]

I'm not trying to deflect to dry legal arguments, I'm just saying that the freakout over drones, and the willingness of people (especially here) to go into impassioned defenses of gunfire as a method of resolving conflict is distressing in the extreme.

There are legitimate questions about drone use and acceptable boundaries for privacy and so forth.

But that's a very different thing from this sudden and, to me, both random and utterly unjustified, explosion of hate and a thirst for destruction via gunfire.
posted by sotonohito at 12:27 PM on April 26, 2017 [7 favorites]

The whole current of "people with drones should be able to film whatever they want, it's a free country and it's the LAW, your privacy be damned, also there is something wrong with you for not liking it" strikes me as very reminiscent of the alt-right's cooption of FREE SPEEEEEECH as a rallying cry for hateful behavior.

I find the gleeful hypothesizing of violence against drones and their operators, or recollection of actual violence, in service of defending one's sovereign property rights, more reminiscent of that, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
posted by jjwiseman at 12:30 PM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

this sudden and, to me, both random and utterly unjustified, explosion of hate and a thirst for destruction via gunfire.

So you're okay with destroying unwelcome intrusive drones via methods other than gunfire.
posted by hippybear at 12:30 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

I would be unhappy with someone flying a drone over my children's heads -- or mine -- at the beach while swimming simply because losing control over the drone means it potentially impacts one of us. Last time I checked, getting hit by a big, heavy piece of plastic and metal with spinning, exposed blades is something that sucks even when you're not trying to stay above water with almost no clothes on.
posted by davejay at 12:33 PM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

But that's a very different thing from this sudden and, to me, both random and utterly unjustified, explosion of hate and a thirst for destruction via gunfire

Why is this surprising? This isn't a person we're talking about here, it's an expensive device that some douchebag is using to violate someone's privacy while flouting federal regulations at the same time.
posted by turkeybrain at 12:34 PM on April 26, 2017 [11 favorites]

Not trying to stir up anything but all of this seems fairly naive. I assume most everybody has seen bullet riddled road signs? The urge to shoot things if you have a gun seems to often be overpowering, what would you expect somebody to do when a buzzing piece of Iphone agency presents itself over head. Go "gee whiz look at that cool drone, let me admire it" or start blasting? Not saying it is right but it seems pretty predictable. People shoot at real airplanes, trains, boats....people are trigger happy.
posted by Pembquist at 12:38 PM on April 26, 2017

Mod note: One comment deleted. Don't be gross.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:38 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

I wonder if there's some class tension involved in people's feelings about this issue. Maybe not as much as with something like Google Glass, but still. E.g. "more money than brains", "expensive device that some douchebag is using".
posted by jjwiseman at 12:39 PM on April 26, 2017

Possibly there's a class aspect. Though I'm poor. I do, however, have the techie urge to own and play with a drone though. I can't afford one, but if I could I'd own one and fly it around. I wanna see the squirrel nests in the eaves of my apartment building up close, see how things **really** look from the air, dodge between the air conditioners on top of Target, and all that stuff.

There's probably at least as much technophile vs technophobe as there is class involved. I definitely fall into the "ZOMG those things are nifty!" category.
posted by sotonohito at 12:43 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

so help me if one of you fuckers shoots down the drone delivering my burrito you will be entering a world of pain
posted by entropicamericana at 12:44 PM on April 26, 2017 [8 favorites]

The drones I have encountered have not been owned by rich people. They also have only been flown over park spaces and weren't being creepy. I don't know if it's a class issue. It's a "don't be a creep" issue.
posted by hippybear at 12:44 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

> But that's a very different thing from this sudden and, to me, both random and utterly unjustified, explosion of hate and a thirst for destruction via gunfire.

It's like you've never met Americans before, or have no familiarity with American culture and history.
posted by rtha at 12:45 PM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

Also "more money than brains" doesn't mean you have to have a lot of money. Also, there are plenty of douchebags who will spend money they can't afford on devices like drones for their own entertainment, whatever that may imply.
posted by hippybear at 12:45 PM on April 26, 2017

The first time I spotted one flying around my neighborhood from my backyard, I was pissed...shooting at it with something was my first impulse, too. (I didn't, though...)

But I did buy a sling shot, with this in mind...
posted by littlejohnnyjewel at 12:46 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Swimming near them with a GoPro strapped to his forehead, looking everywhere he's looking, recording it all.

I guess I can imagine situations where I wouldn't think twice about that, as well as situations where it would concern me. I think my response would have more to do with other aspects of the situation, and little to do with just the fact of a person using a camera.

Well this is the thing about drones. If there is a human in your area, taking photographs or recording video, you have a lot more context. Like, where are they aiming the camera? Are they out in the open or lurking in some bushes? Do they say "Hi, I'm filming a nature documentary with permission from this wildlife refuge! Here's my business card, check out the film when it comes out next year!" Are they standing on a ladder outside your window? Are they aiming the camera at that raptor's nest, or the sign in that storefront, or the family on the passing bus? Are they only photographing that woman as she walks down the street, or are they generally photographing the people in the area? Or are they photographing the area and there just happen to be people in it?

We are much more used to judging the creepiness level of humans than we are of small flying robots. We also have more social power in a human-to-human situation. We can say "Dude, why do you keep photographing my kids?" or we can leave the swimming pool (and if the dude with the camera continues to follow us, well that's another bit of information, isn't it). We can ask them not to photograph us (and if they say "No problem, I don't want to bother you or creep you out!" vs. "It's my legal right to photograph you in a public place"--well, there's a lot more information there conveyed in body language, tone of voice, etc.) But how can you really have a conversation with a drone?
posted by Hypatia at 12:46 PM on April 26, 2017 [26 favorites]

If I had a backyard, I certainly wouldn't want someone's drone hovering over me. Like everything though, there are degrees. Did it pass over? Twice? Six times? Did it hover for a few seconds? A minute? 5 minutes?

I don't know what the answer here is exactly. I don't approve of shooting the things, especially because it puts other people and property at risk. I know a guy who has a drone, a really nice one. He uses it on a rural property, and it's fun to fly it around and take videos and pictures. Like almost everything else, there's shitty and completely non-shitty ways to use things.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 12:48 PM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

It's not like I don't think there are privacy concerns with small drones. There are--it's a huge issue, and one that the FAA specifically avoided considering at all. I don't know what the answers are.

In this thread, I mostly have a strong reaction against what seems like somewhat casual destruction of property, and an itchy trigger finger, especially when it can be really unsafe.
posted by jjwiseman at 12:51 PM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

If we got harsh on drones but defined bullets as very small drones and therefore subject to law I would be down with that.
posted by Artw at 12:53 PM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

Bolas are for the weak
posted by hanov3r at 12:54 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Get a new hobby, raise Eagles.
posted by sammyo at 12:55 PM on April 26, 2017

People will always get more upset about novel things than normalized things. Back when Glass was a thing, people got upset about that even though everyone was carrying cameras anyway (and its trivial to take photos of someone with your cell phone without them knowing). But we're used to everyone carrying cameras, and if you are the kind of person who got upset about that you'd be driven mad by now (I'm sure some people are, but they've lost to the general idea that its ok for everyone to walk around with cameras out). Glass didn't have the same normalization, although future similar devices probably will. Drones are the same, they don't really enable novel new privacy violations but people aren't used to them.

(The idea that they are "an expensive device that some douchebag is using to violate someone's privacy" is ridiculous, as thats not what most drone operators are using them for, although I'm sure some are! Just like we all know there are tons of people taking covert photos of people with phones and other small devices literally every minute in this world).
posted by thefoxgod at 12:56 PM on April 26, 2017 [6 favorites]

I wonder if there's some class tension involved in people's feelings about this issue. Maybe not as much as with something like Google Glass, but still. E.g. "more money than brains", "expensive device that some douchebag is using".

Well, if you review the particulars of the Merideth case, you'll note that the shooter's claimed motivation for shooting down the drone was that he claimed it was hovering over his sunbathing daughter. I think you'll find that men, particularly drone-owning men, will wind up on one side of this argument and those who may find themselves on the receiving end of unwanted attention and surveillance (and their allies) will wind up on the other.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:57 PM on April 26, 2017 [13 favorites]

*Possibly* tangential, although I don't think so - there's evidence of computer malware that, if it can manage to get itself installed on "air-gapped" servers (servers with no network connections), can exfiltrate data by blinking the hard drive LED to the camera of a drone hovering outside the window. If I worked security at a research facility / intelligence farm / tech company and saw a drone outside one of my office windows? I'd be doing my damnedest to bring it down, stat.
posted by hanov3r at 1:09 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

People will always get more upset about novel things than normalized things.

VERY well put. What kind of photos can you even get of human nudity from a drone? Maybe a super high end drone with an expensive camera. But who is going to use that to take pictures of naked people, and possibly get caught? (of course it's bad no matter the quality, but even a creep with a regular old telephoto lens, a vantage point and a tripod could get better pics of naked people than via a drone)

Just like with credit card fraud, people freak out over giving out numbers, or high-tech scanning devices, and then the same day will give the waiter the actual card to take into another room for several minutes before returning it.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 1:12 PM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

Drones ... don't really enable novel new privacy violations

I would classify airborne surveillance by private citizenry as novel and new.
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:13 PM on April 26, 2017 [13 favorites]

I am young, I have plenty of money, I am solidly in the tech class and technophile group, I have not yet bought a drone because I have a small drone I got at a conference and it is neat but I never really use it so I shouldn't spend money on a better drone, and I think people flying drones around someone else's house should fuck off. If the only way to make that happen is to shoot the drone, then so help me god I might start to sympathize with the desire to own a gun. (I also thought my friend who wore Google Glass was being a douche.)
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:16 PM on April 26, 2017

But that's a very different thing from this sudden and, to me, both random and utterly unjustified, explosion of hate and a thirst for destruction via gunfire.

If you really think that this dislike of drones and their invasiveness is either random or unjustified, then you aren't listening. And I'm tired of technophiles reaching for the Luddite card because they can't be bothered to even consider the real concerns that other people have about how new technologies can be abused.

People have good reason to feel concerned and defensive about how drones can be used to enable the violation of one's privacy, and these concerns aren't going away.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:16 PM on April 26, 2017 [19 favorites]

If my neighbor was buzzing his drone around every single day at sunset, I think that might get a little old. Not that shooting it is justified, but maybe its not entirely UNjustified.
posted by Ansible at 1:16 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

The collective freakout over drones seems really misplaced and kneejerk to me. There's already cameras everywhere. Traffic cameras, cop cameras, security cameras, phone cameras, and even spy satellites. If you imagine your back yard is "private" you're woefully mistaken.

Yes, there are, and that fucking sucks, and those things got a foothold because people are lazy and scared. So you have these big organizations--governments and corporations--colluding to erode people's boundaries slowly by appealing to their base instincts, including their desire to not think about boring things. So you give them some assurances, that these tools are only going to be used against the bad guys and not you, incurious law abiding citizen; and that yeah, ha ha the people who say your smart TV could spy on you are just paranoid and self-important, so there's no need to pay attention when they try to explain how your technology works or what it's capable of and why that's not a good idea. Of course it's a good idea! It's fun and easy!

So dull, lazy people buy in, and it slowly becomes so normal for people to be walking around casually wearing wires and creeping on people on datamining sites that it becomes unavoidable, like society develops a herd immunity to privacy. And unless you want to build a Faraday cage around your house or pat people down like an organized criminal, people are regularly walking around in your private property with sophisticated, always on surveillance devices in their pockets.

And then, once the boundaries have eroded to that point, you can use these new social norms to excuse random civilians flying spy drones outside your bathroom window.

And eventually, I personally will develop technology to harvest minute traces of DNA from every person who has ever Cassandraed me about this stuff, and create little homunculus-like versions of them--their progency in the truest sense--which I will keep in little glass jars like in The Bride of Frankenstein, and who will be left to speak for them?
posted by ernielundquist at 1:17 PM on April 26, 2017 [9 favorites]

Drones belong in a set area in city parks during a special weekly Drone Time. They are annoying as hell otherwise. I don't want to hear that whiny sound any more than I wanna hear Fast and Furious fans race their sport bikes up and down the street late at night. Noise pollution is just as bad as any other pollution ... to say nothing of the privacy concerns.
posted by freecellwizard at 1:21 PM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

I do not want anyone using robots to monitor my home remotely.

I am boggled that people opposed to recreational use of flying surveillance robots are viewed as unreasonably hostile to technology.
posted by winna at 1:21 PM on April 26, 2017 [26 favorites]

(hope this isn't too off topic): This echoes my thoughts on so-called "driverless cars." As soon as cars are "driverless" i.e., un-occupied but moving around, they will become a target of anger, vandalism and theft far more than any regular car. Even regular cars with bad, irresponsible drivers. Take the human out of the situation, and it's no-holds barred. Driverless cars will be tagged, shot, vandalized and stolen for scrap with abandon.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 1:22 PM on April 26, 2017 [6 favorites]

I would classify airborne surveillance by private citizenry as novel and new.

I knew people doing this back in the 80's with RC planes and cameras, so it's not really novel (I even built a model rocket with a camera on it in that timeframe). It might be easier now, which is a different statement.

I also think that in most cases (backyards, etc) it's probably possible to use non-drone equipment to get photos if you're motivated (trees, high buildings, etc), but I'm also sure there are situations where it does enable photos of a place otherwise inaccessible (high walls with no surrounding high buildings or trees, for example).

I don't own or use drones so I've got no real dog in this fight, but given cellphones and miniaturized cameras I basically assume I am being filmed 100% of the time outside my home (and even then only if I've properly secured all my windows/etc). Thats not something thats ever going to change unless we convince people to give up cellphone cameras and ban miniaturized cameras (nannycam/buttonhole style).
posted by thefoxgod at 1:23 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

this sudden and, to me, both random and utterly unjustified, explosion of hate and a thirst for destruction via gunfire.

To me, this is a little like punching a fascist. I don't think I would do it personally, but I can appreciate it when someone else does.

I am not absolutely not saying that drone owners are fascists.
posted by Slothrup at 1:32 PM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

I knew people doing this back in the 80's with RC planes and cameras, so it's not really novel (I even built a model rocket with a camera on it in that timeframe). It might be easier now, which is a different statement.

Edison wouldn't be half so famous if "possible to do" wasn't worlds different from "cheap and easy to do."
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:34 PM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

Drones ... don't really enable novel new privacy violations

I don't agree with this any more than I agree with NRA types when they argue in the wake of a mass shooting that the perpetrator's easy access to assault rifles wasn't an issue, as he could just as easily have killed a whole bunch of people with a steak knife.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:35 PM on April 26, 2017 [10 favorites]

It's only a matter of time until one of these drones "accidentally" captures images/video of a nude child through a window or playing in a private yard. That's going to be a shitshow since possession of said material is automatic grounds for conviction. I expect that to be the case that will make the operators of these drones think twice before pointing their cameras inside of other's homes or yards.

I live in a high rise that has no buildings in front. The other night, a drone with a camera facing toward the building was literally a few feet away from my balcony and was clearly spying on people who thought they had some privacy. Regardless of the law, it felt like a huge violation.
posted by pleem at 1:35 PM on April 26, 2017 [8 favorites]

How much of this is about intimidation? I'd say there's probably a big difference between, say, a Mavic at a couple of hundred feet and an Inspire (like the one in the article) at 50 feet. Maybe not that much privacy difference, since they're both shooting 4k gimbal-stabilised video, but the Mavic you probably won't notice and the Inspire is a very obvious, aggressive feeling, presence. I would also think that, if flying over your garden, one would feel like it was *in* your garden, and one maybe wouldn't. Could definitely see that as an operator motivation; shooting video through someone's bathroom window isn't going to get you anything you can't see on the internet a million times over, but it'll do a *great* job of intimidating the person you're peeping at.

I've flown my ($80) micro quad in the local park a few times, but I don't bother if there are kids about, mostly because of the parent worry thing mentioned above. It's too low-res for spying on people, and too light to hurt anyone, but strangers won't know that and it seems like there's a lot of fear about. Racing around obstacles while zooming from ground level to treetop height is a lot of fun though...
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 1:35 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Here is a good YouTube search.
posted by maryr at 1:37 PM on April 26, 2017

There is the other issue raised in the article that this is apparently a common occurrence:

Jones hoped, as he does on most nights, to capture some of the forested and hilly scenery in the environs of his hometown... (my emphasis)

I don't know how loud these drones are but if my property was being buzzed "most nights" that would probably rile me up some too.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 1:37 PM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

NoxAeternum If you really think that this dislike of drones and their invasiveness is either random or unjustified, then you aren't listening.

winna I am boggled that people opposed to recreational use of flying surveillance robots are viewed as unreasonably hostile to technology.

Y'all seem to be ignoring the fact that we aren't talking about a "dislike" or "opposition", but people cheering on crazy ass gun owners shooting at things.

Here, on MeFi, there's generally an opposition to crazy ass gun owners randomly shooting things. It tends to be frowned on here.

So yes, I'm taken off guard when the generally sensible and not NRA worshiping crowd at MeFi starts cheering gun toting jackasses randomly shooting things, and indulging in their vengefully destructive fantasies of doing the same.

There's a huge gap between "this technology disturbs me and I have grave privacy concerns" and "HAW HAW LOOKAT THAT DRONE SMASH, I WANNA SMASH DRONES TOO!!!!!".

Yes, I'm a technophile, and frankly I find it personally threatening even though I don't own a drone. The reaction takes me totally off guard, seems bloodthirsty and wildly out of proportion to the supposed crime. It distresses me that something I'd like to own one day seems, in the minds of people I generally like and respect, to be such a boogieman figure that they turn away from their normal behavior and start saying things I'd expect more from the NRA forums than Metafilter.

I was as baffled and frightened by what I saw as irrational and threatening behavior and attitudes towards Google Glass. I saw people swearing that if they ever saw a person wearing Glass they'd punch them, or snatch it off their face and break it. Not here, but elsewhere. And it distressed and frightened me there too.

To me it seems not merely irrational, but utterly and completely baffling. I can understand annoyance, I can even understand a degree of anger, but the gun violence fantasies came totally out of nowhere from my point of view. WTF?
posted by sotonohito at 1:57 PM on April 26, 2017 [8 favorites]

Yeah, there's really no comparison between "people with cameras" and drones. People with cameras can't easily, covertly, and anonymously photograph someone through a third-floor window and then make a quick escape. When the creeper is constrained by their body, they can only creep so much without being called out on it. Drones don't have those restrictions, which is what makes them unsettling as fuck.
posted by delight at 2:02 PM on April 26, 2017 [7 favorites]

And I'm not seeing the "shoot the drones" thing as a literal wish to actually shoot drones, but more as a clumsy way of saying "I really hate drones and don't want them around me."
posted by delight at 2:04 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Hmm. Drones would have been such cools toys when I was 14. But now I'm for grounding them if they become intrusive.

I don't want people hurt, but I understand why people want to hurt robots hovering outside their windows or over their property. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy at home and a reasonable expectation not to be followed about town and country by peepers and stalkers using remotely controlled helicopter cameras.

If anyone is going to lose privacy in this matter, it should be the operators. Require drones to send out a unique signal so they can be tracked and the owners identified by anyone who cares to track them. Then it's not an unidentified drone hovering outside your bathroom window, it's Bob Smith from down the block remotely hovering outside your bathroom window.

But privacy aside, it would be a shame if the quiet of nature was destroyed by whirring robots hovering over yards, parks, and woods. Maybe if you can't legally ride your motorbike through a place, you also shouldn't be able to hover your whirring robot camera over it. Something like that.
posted by pracowity at 2:06 PM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

To me it seems not merely irrational, but utterly and completely baffling. I can understand annoyance, I can even understand a degree of anger, but the gun violence fantasies came totally out of nowhere from my point of view. WTF?

I think that a significant proportion of the anger comes from justifiable expectation of invasion of privacy that a drone with a camera represents. A drone with a camera can hover out of reach, can record and livestream you, and can do so with impunity. You have no way of knowing who is operating it (if they're hiding), and you have little recourse. And as we've seen with Gamergate/alt-right/4chan motherfuckers on the internet will not hesitate to weaponize that surveillance against women, PoC, whomever. Just look at what happened to Louise Rosealma at the Berkeley protests: their face was on camera being assaulted and the alt-right used those photos to identify them and begin a campaign of harrassment.

I'm gonna go on a bit of a tangent here , but look, breaking a drone is a property crime. It's not bloodthirsty, it's not violence against people. One of the key complaints that the coalition on the left in this country has against capitalism is that we punish property crimes harshly, sometimes incredibly out of proportion, particularly with crimes against people may be met with indifference. See all of the liberal and conservative handwringing about black bloc tactics of smashing windows, burning trashcans, while the shootings of people of color are met with "well, did the victim deserve it?"

Using guns against drones is dangerous and foolhardy. Full stop. But I think there is a place to discuss when drones invade privacy, and what actions can be taken to stop such invasions. And there's nothing more American than treating guns in a dangerous and foolhardy fashion.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:09 PM on April 26, 2017 [14 favorites]

I bet the NRA could do some recruiting in this thread. Look, a dangerous, hard-to-understand, external threat! This is how we feel about our homes against home invaders, now you see why we need our guns?
posted by Space Coyote at 2:18 PM on April 26, 2017 [6 favorites]

While some tool flying a drone around your back yard would be annoying, shooting a gun in a neighborhood is highly irresponsible. That's why I keep a rod and reel on the roof of my house.

posted by ActingTheGoat at 2:19 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

Pervy drone use is probably very rare and will continue to be

Nahhh-- I think the inverse is true. As drones continue to drop in price and increase in visual quality and control, it only opens the market further allowing more creeps (by number, if not percentage) to own one.

There's a decent expectation of privacy within your house, that's being carved away with each techological revision. A tiny drone with a 4k camera capable of looking through 1" crack in your curtains with it's optically stabilized camera is going to be *the default drone* within a few years.
posted by Static Vagabond at 2:20 PM on April 26, 2017 [9 favorites]

The reaction takes me totally off guard, seems bloodthirsty and wildly out of proportion to the supposed crime. It distresses me that something I'd like to own one day seems, in the minds of people I generally like and respect, to be such a boogieman figure that they turn away from their normal behavior and start saying things I'd expect more from the NRA forums than Metafilter.

I think the chances of your hypothetical drone being shot from the sky by an irate gun nut at some point in the future are significantly lower than the chances that some person (or persons) in this thread will be spied upon by a creeper, whether via drone or otherwise. (Women especially.) In fact, a few different people have already related stories of having had their privacy invaded by drones in the very recent past. This is not mere paranoid technophobia.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:20 PM on April 26, 2017 [19 favorites]

Mod note: Couple comments deleted. Thread is already hot, it doesn't help to come in with namecalling and so on. Reasonable people can disagree about things, let's approach this stuff as if we actually want to talk to each other please.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:20 PM on April 26, 2017

Incidentally, there's already ammunition available specifically for taking down drones, which seems to cover some of the issues with missed shots raining down on innocent people.

12 Gauge Skynet Drone Defense – 3-Pack

There's even a video.

Rather pricey, but if I had problems with drones, I might give it a try.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 2:26 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

I think people will get used to drones as time goes on, the same way people are fine with having a camera on every phone. Pervy drone use is probably very rare and will continue to be

If phones could fly distances and hover by remote control, take pictures, and quickly fly away again without people knowing who owned them, people absolutely would not be fine with having a camera on every phone.

There's a big difference between you standing in the same room and pointing a camera at me and you anonymously flying a very fast drone over my fence, up over my home, over my property, and up to an upstairs window to send pictures back to an unknown location.
posted by pracowity at 2:28 PM on April 26, 2017 [11 favorites]

@Xyanthilous - evidently that round isn't very good.
posted by isauteikisa at 2:36 PM on April 26, 2017

I'm a remote sensing analyst. If I'm investigating umanned systems of whatever sort as platforms for different sensors for different scientific and commercial applications, & I'm flying over a public park, or over my own property, and someone shoots down my drone because they think* I'm using my drone for reasons they don't understand.... I promise you I will absolutely bring the full weight of the law down on their trigger-happy ass in two shakes.

You do not get to make the call of whether I will operate a SUAS in a public space. Not even a little. Not if it has a camera, or two cameras, or a miniaturized LiDAR emitter, or a fucking propeller beanie. If I am not violating laws or regulations relating to airspace use, civil aviation, park regulations or other applicable code, destroying my property is just pernicious vandalism. Trying to justify it because an airborne camera platform might be used for ... what, peeping in windows? - is like slashing someone's tires because a car might be used in a bank heist.

Granted, if I'm going to be flying anything, I'll be taking steps to ensure people understand who's controlling the gadget and why, but that's me and not really the point.

*not actually thinking much
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 2:37 PM on April 26, 2017 [10 favorites]

To me it seems not merely irrational

What's "rational" about thinking you can fly a drone wherever you like?
posted by thelonius at 2:38 PM on April 26, 2017 [7 favorites]

Re: Google Glass, the pushback wasn't just about invasion of privacy, it was a confluence of that and the fact that owning a Google Glass was a sign of extreme privilege, given their cost and the limited supply. So wearing them in public was basically saying "I am rich and I don't care about your privacy concerns."

That translates in many circles as "please punch me in the face."
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:38 PM on April 26, 2017 [8 favorites]

You do not get to make the call of whether I will operate a SUAS in a public space. Not even a little.

I gather you understand and agree with the position that a drone over someone's house is fair game?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 2:40 PM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

I think drones will become less threatening to most people as we gain familiarity with them, like cameras on phones did. Most of the time, people are using them to do normal stuff, not to deliberately intrude on peoples' privacy. I think it is interesting to see that some people tend to call them a surveillance device or robot and other people might call them a toy or a camera. I'm guessing that in the future they will be seen more like a toy and a camera, especially once kids have cheap, tiny selfie drones and stuff. I think drones may also enable documentation of abuses by the state, the same way cell phone cameras have really transformed the visibility of police misconduct.

The very small percentage of people that might actually take violent vigilante action towards drones or anything else probably have other issues because vigilantism is really never okay. It is odd to hear so much talk about violent vigilantism here on Metafilter, even if most of it is presumably metaphorical, or at least highly theoretical.
posted by snofoam at 2:41 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

evidently that round isn't very good

Interesting! They were apparently good enough to get the US Air Force to buy a bunch of them.

[edit: for testing purposes. I'd like to see if their results are the same.]
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 2:43 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Yes, I'm a technophile, and frankly I find it personally threatening even though I don't own a drone. The reaction takes me totally off guard, seems bloodthirsty and wildly out of proportion to the supposed crime. It distresses me that something I'd like to own one day seems, in the minds of people I generally like and respect, to be such a boogieman figure that they turn away from their normal behavior and start saying things I'd expect more from the NRA forums than Metafilter.

I was as baffled and frightened by what I saw as irrational and threatening behavior and attitudes towards Google Glass. I saw people swearing that if they ever saw a person wearing Glass they'd punch them, or snatch it off their face and break it. Not here, but elsewhere. And it distressed and frightened me there too.

To me it seems not merely irrational, but utterly and completely baffling. I can understand annoyance, I can even understand a degree of anger, but the gun violence fantasies came totally out of nowhere from my point of view. WTF?

Again, you're not listening to the complaints and concerns that people have about how these technologies can be abused in ways that can harm individuals through the abuse of privacy. Furthermore, you're dismissing those concerns out of hand - calling them irrational and a "boogieman", basically saying that these people shouldn't be concerned about what they see as serious invasions of their personal privacy.

And then you're surprised when the people whose concerns you've rebuffed and dismissed feel that they need to resort to violence to protect themselves, because their valid concerns are getting blown off.

The answer is simple - technophiles need to stop using the Luddite card to dismiss criticism of these sorts of technologies, and realize that people have a right to say "no, being out in public does not mean I consent to being under surveillance by anyone who wishes."
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:43 PM on April 26, 2017 [17 favorites]

*not actually thinking much

While you were partying, I studied the (rotor) blade(s).
posted by kmz at 2:44 PM on April 26, 2017

It is odd to hear so much talk about violent vigilantism here on Metafilter, even if most of it is presumably metaphorical, or at least highly theoretical.

While it is theoretical, I have considered what I'd do if I found a drone sneaking around my property and peering in the bedroom window of my kids. My preferred strategy would involve some stealth and a heavy blanket, followed by plausible deniability if the owner was brazen enough to come by looking for it. I wouldn't call this vigilantism per se, but a rational response to invasion of privacy, and I don't think it unreasonable. If it's obviously surveilling my family and I can manage to bring it down, you ain't getting it back, bud.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:47 PM on April 26, 2017 [11 favorites]

Google Glass was upsetting because it was aggressive; cameraphone peepers are bad enough, but GG wearers were saying LOL I am surveiling you effortlessly because fuck you I want to, that's why. You thought you were mostly ok to walk around, nope, I'm scanning you for wank material or the hell of it just by turning my head! Because I am that kind of asshole.

Drones, same thing. Dudes who point their telescopes or binoculars in people's windows are bad enough, but now they can get closeups and are harder to block and also are rubbing it in your face by having their camera hover juuust outside your reach. I mean, why wouldn't I feel rage?

All the handwringing about how Mefi Has Gone Gaga for Guns, Oh My Stars is completely failing to understand what people feel, It's not about guns, it's about assholes once again ruining your life by making you think about how they see you as wank material, as not a person but an object there to be exploited whether you like it or not. It's street harassment in your own fucking home or backyard, a place where you felt safe from that. It's scary and upsetting and yeah, rage-inducing.

I wouldn't use a gun because I would be afraid of hurting an innocent person. But a netgun, or some other way to take that fucker down that was hovering outside my window or over my yard? In a heartbeat.

You got a problem with that, because you want to hover over my yard for some kind of innocuous reason? Then come talk with me and get my permission, asshole. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you're a creeper, just the same as if you were "birdwatching" by putting a ladder against the fence and looking into my yard with binoculars.

I'm just guessing but all the people angry about getting their drones shot down...are you dudes? Because I'm getting the impression that you have never known the fear and anger that comes from total strangers aggressivly invading your privacy on the regular.
posted by emjaybee at 2:48 PM on April 26, 2017 [49 favorites]

Hahaha...just wait until they're so small as to be invisible and flying around in hordes giving them a distributed synthetic aperture equal to the resolution of the hubble telescope, peeking in every window, all of the time.
Wait, did I say 'Hahaha'? I meant 'Oh god, dear god, Noooo!'
posted by sexyrobot at 2:51 PM on April 26, 2017

Buckshot. It was mentioned before, but it needs mentioning again.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 3:02 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Birdshot, surely.
posted by ryanrs at 3:15 PM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

The incredulity about voyeurism is really weird considering how pervasive it is.

There is plenty of high quality porn available for free all over the internet, but there are still tons of people who are really, really into creepshots and peeping. And even pretty mainstream news sources often publish photos of celebrities "wardrobe malfunctions." Sometimes celebrities who have done consensual nudes, even. Because a lot of people really, really get off on the non-consensual aspect.

So the idea that using drones to nonconsensually peep on people is going to be some rare case is kind of absurd. It's happened already, and that case was only brought to light through some pretty extreme efforts on the part of one of the victims. (The articles about it are kind of vague about what caused that drone to "land" in a parking lot, I'll add.)

There have also been plenty of complaints that police have refused to do anything about despite the fact that, as someone points out in that article, many times they are violating existing harassment and nuisance laws. So it's up to people being harassed to take matters into their own hands if they want anything done about it. And as long as there aren't some clear concessions respecting individuals' reasonable expectations of privacy (that don't involve them just adjusting their expectations further), that's what's going to happen.
posted by ernielundquist at 3:16 PM on April 26, 2017 [17 favorites]

Technologies do not arise in a vacuum. They are shaped by the society that builds them, and they in turn shape society. For example, if we lived in a society where women were not routinely stalked, or where government and corporate surveillance is not omnipresent, then society would have a different set of opinions about drones. Or if we lived in a society that was not so militarized and did not consider it necessary to surveille large tracts of Wherever We Are Bombing Now, the drone as we know it might not exist, because the technology was mostly developed by the military. Does this mean that drone technology is inherently evil? No. It's not inherently good either.

It is entirely appropriate to debate the use of technology; what policies and laws about its use should be; what social norms should be. We had, and continue to have, those conversations about guns, and cameras, and all of the technology that existed prior to about 1995 or so, why then do we think that technology of the past few years must be exempted from this debate? (In my opinion, it's because industry and government want us to feel helpless, to throw up our hands and say "Goodness, better get out of the way! Can't stop the inevitable march of progress, they'll just do what they want!")
posted by Hypatia at 3:17 PM on April 26, 2017 [12 favorites]

The incredulity about voyeurism is really weird considering how pervasive it is.

People are shocked to find gambling in that casino, I think.
posted by winna at 3:27 PM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

We had, and continue to have, those conversations about guns, and cameras, and all of the technology that existed prior to about 1995 or so, why then do we think that technology of the past few years must be exempted from this debate?

I absolutely agree, and I think this is happening. Regulations regarding drone use are being put into place in many places and I would anticipate laws and law enforcement regarding misuse of drones will continue to develop. I don't think anyone supports abusive, inappropriate or illegal use of drones. I think drones do raise privacy concerns, and unfortunately, I'm sure people will misuse drones. I think abuse of drones will be a very small subset of overall drone use, and I hope that it can be addressed effectively by laws and law enforcement. In addition to legal issues, I hope that we develop a general etiquette around drone use that makes it less intrusive. I don't have a drone, but I think they do have quite a bit of potential for filmmaking, wildlife censusing and a whole variety of useful things. Either way, I definitely don't think they are going away and I don't think vigilantism is the solution.
posted by snofoam at 3:29 PM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

I think abuse of drones will be a very small subset of overall drone use, and I hope that it can be addressed effectively by laws and law enforcement.

Unfortunately, based on how seriously law enforcement take online harassment and sexual assault, I don't have high hopes in this arena.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:37 PM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

Back in 1994 or 1995 my next door neighbor used to use his scanner to listen in on the lady across the street talk on her cordless phone because he was a creepy dude and that's what the level of cheaply available consumer technology allowed him to do. I don't understand why it's such a leap to believe that creepy dudes will still be creepy with inexpensive and readily available camera equipped drones
posted by ActingTheGoat at 3:38 PM on April 26, 2017 [13 favorites]

EMP weapons would fix this pretty quickly
posted by blue_beetle at 3:43 PM on April 26, 2017

EMP weapons would fix this pretty quickly
"when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death."
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 3:48 PM on April 26, 2017 [4 favorites]

A rain of bullets is as american as apple pie and right of passage for every child. A rain of drone, not so much.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:18 AM on April 26 [2 favorites +] [!]

Nah, rain of drone is more of a Pakistan thing.
posted by klanawa at 3:53 PM on April 26, 2017

EMP weapons would fix this pretty quickly

Making an EMP is non-trivial. Odds are the explosives route won't be legal in the US and if you used raw power you'd be stomping all over the FCC rules.

I'm still waiting to see the videos of ramming speed intercept drones VS other drones.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:54 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

I wrote about this issue recently for Drone360 magazine....but it's paywalled, and I'd like to say a few things as a longtime lurker.

I research the use of drones for humanitarian purposes. (And if relevant, I'm not a man!). I do a lot of work on the ethical use of drones for these use-cases. I know a lot of people who use drones to do things like: capture post-disaster imagery, look for missing people, survey fields of crops, create high-resolution maps for community mapping efforts in slum areas, conduct wildlife counts, survey archeological sites - etc etc etc. These people are working hard to use drone technology in an ethical and safe way. Drones interest me because they're inexpensive and easy to use: they make it possible for anyone to make high quality maps and take aerial photos, including not-so-rich people who are doing things like protecting their land from illegal logging, land grabs, and poaching.

Ethical drone users don't like the idiot drone jerks who fly over suburban neighborhoods or street fairs any more than you do: they make our lives much harder and make people dislike drones (for good reason).

However.

I'm really, really, REALLY worried that me and my colleagues who do all these Pretty Good things in perfectly legal ways will find ourselves confronted by a pissed off person with a gun. And I agree with other posters that it's disquieting to see people who normally abhor gun violence make an exception here.

Why is it dangerous to shoot at a drone? Plenty of reasons. People are bad at eyeballing property lines from the air: there are cases where drone operators weren't over anyone's private property when they got shot at. Bullets come down in places they aren't supposed to, and sometimes they kill. A drone with a bullet in it will come down pretty much anywhere, rendering a flying machine that's quite safe suddenly much more dangerous. Many drone operators fly in groups, and many fly with their children.

Cheerful endorsement of shootin' at drones and asking questions later means serious threats to the life and limb of a lot of people I respect and work with.

Please consider that there's a human being flying the drone, and they're probably not far from the drone, either. Drone operators who are acting like dicks should be named, shamed, and prosecuted when possible. But don't shoot at them. And please don't advocate for shooting at them.
posted by faineg at 4:10 PM on April 26, 2017 [21 favorites]

begun, the Drone Wars have
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:17 PM on April 26, 2017 [11 favorites]

This is an interesting discussion, but I figure private drone ownership/operation by individuals (probably not corps.) will go the way of the dodo as soon as a terrorist group manages to pull off an attack with a drone on a public gathering in a Western country. It's just a matter of time, and I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. (To be honest, it was one of my fears at the Woman's March - we were packed so tightly that even if a drone flown into the crowd hadn't been carrying explosives or acid, the panic alone would have killed/injured hundreds. I'm still surprised that nobody tried anything (at least that the public knows about)).
posted by longdaysjourney at 4:32 PM on April 26, 2017

You don't need an EMP. You just need the guts out of an old microwave and a dish to focus it.

Let's see if your Part 15 drone controller accepts this interference.
posted by ryanrs at 4:34 PM on April 26, 2017

(obligatory safety notice: building an anti-drone energy weapon out of microwave parts is dangerous and you should probably not do it)
posted by ryanrs at 4:39 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

NoxAeternum The answer is simple - technophiles need to stop using the Luddite card to dismiss criticism of these sorts of technologies, and realize that people have a right to say "no, being out in public does not mean I consent to being under surveillance by anyone who wishes."

If that had happened anywhere you'd have point.

Instead you're trying to gloss over threats of violence and celebration of violence as "criticism".

I'd like to have a discussion about the ethics of drones. That's really fucking hard to do when there's a bunch of people who normally abhor guns going off on how they plan to shoot drones and support anyone who does.

If y'all could back the fantasy violence down a few notches there's a valuable discussion to be had here. But instead everyone is just going all Internet Tough Guy about their fantasies of how they'd destroy any drones they see.
posted by sotonohito at 4:51 PM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

In my opinion, sworn enemies of the Trump regime shouldn't be in favor of banning the private use of drones. That's because drones go both ways: people who aren't powerful or rich can build and use drones, too. Suddenly, people who can't afford satellite imagery, professional surveying, or overflight with manned aircraft can collect aerial data.

Journalists , activists, and average people have been using drones for some time now to document things that governments and corporations don't want you to see. Stuff like illegal logging, violence against protesters at DAPL, inequality in South Africa, and much much more.

Government and police are already catching onto this, making it harder to use drones for journalism. I don't think that's a good thing. Especially not in Trump's America. Normalizing shooting down drones also makes it easier to justify taking down drones that are being used for journalism and activism.

If private drones are banned, only the government will have access to them. A ban on private drones grounds Jerkoff Neighbor in Tube Socks, sure. But it also grounds people who rely on inexpensive private drones to gather information they can't get any other way.
posted by faineg at 4:58 PM on April 26, 2017 [8 favorites]

faineg: "A ban on private drones grounds Jerkoff Neighbor in Tube Socks, sure. But it also grounds people who rely on inexpensive private drones to gather information they can't get any other way."

Is there any way to reformulate this argument to not sound like "sucks to be wank material for pervs but them's the breaks"?
posted by erratic meatsack at 5:24 PM on April 26, 2017 [6 favorites]

I mean, I'm not trying to ignore the good points you brought up, faineg. Because yeah we need people to fight the good fight against a government with transparency issues, no matter where in the world it is. But it's kind of gross imply that we need to suffer some degree of "Jerkoff Neighbor in Tube Socks" for the greater good, because that is soul crushing to hear as a woman.
posted by erratic meatsack at 5:30 PM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

I'm also a woman.

But I don't feel that the potential risk to my privacy from pervs in any way outweighs the benefits that could (and do) accrue to women from using drones to make a living/document injustice/protect their rights. I definitely *don't* want my drones taken away from me due to concern about my privacy. I get that other women may feel differently, but I do firmly believe that taking drones away from private citizens isn't actually a pro-woman move.

(There is a sadly predictable ongoing debate in the drone community about sexism against female drone pilots - but there are lots of us!)
posted by faineg at 5:38 PM on April 26, 2017 [5 favorites]

as soon as a terrorist group manages to pull off an attack with a drone on a public gathering in a Western country.

Remote-controlled planes and helicopters have been around for a long time. If somebody wanted to do something like that, nothing has been holding them back.
posted by bh at 5:43 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Shooting at flying metal things seems like a bad plan. But letting a drone that's actively being used for perving continue on its merry way doesn't seem so great either.

The technology exists, but how can we bend it towards use for good? Say, you require drone companies to have a standard electronic signal that disables the camera on their drone. Then people in this thread could have their privacy back without damaging the drone (if the operator is too far away to safely pilot the drone when camera is disabled, maybe they're too far away), but governmental actors could also blanket an area with the disabling signal when they want to hide their actions (DAPL, etc).

Same thing if someone develops a drone-camera-disabler spray/shot/whatever. So, for people who want the ability to fly drones around, who use that ability for good, what can be done to change the technology so as to limit pervy use?
posted by nat at 6:18 PM on April 26, 2017

For those that are really concerned about it, maybe engage with people advocating the use of unmanned systems for HA/DR and other legitimate uses and get a sense of where they are on the scale of "Go fuck yourself" to "of course we care about and mitigate that, and here's how" w/r/t your concerns, rather than simply saying "yes, well, this thing you do MIGHT be used for purposes that are fucking gross" - and, let me be clear, obviously they are fucking gross, and worse - "so they deserve to be destroyed with extreme prejudice irrespective of their actual employ." Seriously. Most of the people who are working with these things in whatever capacity are not just your natural allies, but way more hip to the privacy implications than the average schmoe and, I would warrant, thee and me.

As far as I can tell, what it means when people are advocating violence against machines or their makers is that they're not interested in sticky, complicated things like the actual uses they're being put to. It's really disheartening because the potential for SUASs to be tools of democracy, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and accountability is really profound. I'd warrant none of you would advocate the dissolution of the internet as we know it, even though it enables corporate and governmental surveillance that is literally many orders of magnitude more invasive. You don't use drones, so you don't care quite as much?

Mazel Tov, I guess.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 7:20 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

I searched through the thread and I definitely could have missed this, but do not see any proposal to ban private ownership of drones outright. Is there something I'm not seeing that's making a few people argue against this (what seems to me) nonexistent stance? For the most part, I'm seeing folks share privacy concerns regarding drones entering or hovering near their residences. This is a whole different set of circumstances than "here's the good drones can do in regards to journalism." I think defending Drones in General, while understandable due to the resources they can provide , feels maybe... weird, enough to at least make me feel defensive. Because yeah, I would much rather privacy concerns get taken seriously in our world - I want to say for once, really.
posted by erratic meatsack at 7:33 PM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

I searched through the thread and I definitely could have missed this, but do not see any proposal to ban private ownership of drones outright.

This would be pretty odd. We don't ban tape recorders, cameras, lasers, etc. outright. The bar to ban private ownership of a whole class of things is pretty high, I would think.
posted by snofoam at 7:37 PM on April 26, 2017

Drones

Friends, we’re living in a golden, fleeting moment
wherein rich people are buying very expensive toys
that fly higher than airplanes. The toys can land anywhere—
on your fire escape, in your yard—and photograph you
through your curtains with a surveillance camera, record
things you’re saying with a high-powered microphone.
Scientists originally built the toy to murder people
in other countries, and now rich people in this country
want to buy them. Why? I have absolutely no idea, but
I can’t wait to kill one: shoot it with a shotgun, shoot it
with the hose, wing it with rocks, pick the wings off,
light it on fire, and stomp on it wearing steel-toed boots.
Rich people will be outraged that their toys are being
destroyed, then lobbyists will make destroying the toy
illegal, so we must move fast. The cleverest of us
already are: down in our basements, under the gun.
-Jennifer L. Knox
posted by daisystomper at 7:53 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

Y'all seem to be ignoring the fact that we aren't talking about a "dislike" or "opposition", but people cheering on crazy ass gun owners shooting at things.

There might be less of that if people (the public in general) felt like there were some kind of recourse. When there's not, that's when you get "self-help" cases, and a lot of people don't blame them a bit. Shooting down a drone with a gun is an extremely stupid, dangerous thing to do. But it sure is easy to also read it as an "underdog unexpectedly wins" story, which people love, if you don't think too hard about it. It's real life Spy vs. Spy.
posted by ctmf at 8:22 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

explosion: "As One World Trade Center is 1776 feet high, isn't that precedent for property boundaries going at least that high in the US?"

Doesn't General Aviation space start at 500'?

rtha: "If they want to film underage girls in swimsuits, we will know this because they will be...filming underage girls in swimsuits."

This is a bizarrely hetero-normative series of comments for metafilter (and the internet in general considering the status of the gay pedophile boogeyman).

jeff-o-matic: "VERY well put. What kind of photos can you even get of human nudity from a drone? Maybe a super high end drone with an expensive camera. But who is going to use that to take pictures of naked people, and possibly get caught? (of course it's bad no matter the quality, but even a creep with a regular old telephoto lens, a vantage point and a tripod could get better pics of naked people than via a drone)"

Well yes and no depending on the location. Because of topology and the vagaries of forest cover there are quite a few hilltops at the top of hikes in locality that while giving a good view don't have line of sight to anywhere within a couple kilometres. My spouse and I were enjoying some private time at one of these locations a couple years ago when we were buzzed quite unexpectedly by a drone. We were packing up but a few minutes earlier and the operator would have had quite a show (heck maybe they did get a show without us knowing). And the chance of catching the (illegal) operator who was probably down in the trailhead parking lot is essentially nil.

Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick: "12 Gauge Skynet Drone Defense – 3-Pack"

I work in a provincial park. Operation of drones is essentially illegal anywhere within park boundaries. Every couple weeks we get some yahoo operating his drone directly over the service area endangering the few hundred people below. Or harrassing wildlife big and small. And this isn't accidental; we are dozens of kilometres from the nearest park boundry. If my employer, the park operator, would allow me to use it I'd pay for this or something like it out of my own pocket. We already get issued 12 gauge shotguns for bear protection in some instances.

rough ashlar: "I'm still waiting to see the videos of ramming speed intercept drones VS other drones."

Robot Wars the home game :)
posted by Mitheral at 8:36 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

This is relevant to this conversation because one of the chief complaints about drones is voyeurism.

If someone's goal is to be a voyeuristic creep, there are much less expensive and much more discreet ways of going about it. Telephoto lenses are cheaper than most drones capable of taking decent quality video for anything more than a couple of minutes. I guess telescopes and long lenses have been around long enough that, like cars, most people have stopped thinking about them and therefore don't display the irrational anger that many display on this topic.

I mean, many drones aren't even capable of taking video or photos (especially with enough zoom to matter..A GoPro can't see shit unless it's right in your face thanks to the ultrawide lens), yet all cameras are, but nobody is advocating shooting cameras in general.
posted by wierdo at 8:46 PM on April 26, 2017

> This is a bizarrely hetero-normative series of comments for metafilter (and the internet in general considering the status of the gay pedophile boogeyman).

What? I guess you missed the comment I was referring to?

For that matter, did you miss all the other comments from and about women concerned (justifiably, because it's not exactly rare!) about being perved on by men? What even is this comment?
posted by rtha at 8:47 PM on April 26, 2017 [10 favorites]

First and most important, firing a gun without knowing where the bullet is going to come to rest is criminally irresponsible. From details in the story it sounds like Jones was flying low and slow enough that a old drunk guy with with a handgun could hit his drone.

Hitting a drone with a .22 is dumb luck, sharpshooting, or easy. There's a matrix of difficulty, with axes of altitude and speed, and in the low altitude/loitering portion of the matrix, the shots are easier. There are only two shots reported: the one that drove Jones east, and the one that brought down his drone. Not a fusillade.

Everybody's locations are identifiable from information in the story and internet sources. Jones and Lively are separated by approximately 150 feet along Guy Jones Road. Lively lives across the street from the Seventh Day Adventist Church, west of Jones.

It sounds like an atypical neighborhood dynamic: Guy Jones Road? Brad Jones? ".. 85% of the land he flies over is owned by members of his extended family?" Jones insinuating that Lively was likely to have been drinking?

Jones:"I fly the same route almost every day,..."
and ".. and Mister Lively stated that the he did not shoot it down but stated that he hates those drones."
posted by the Real Dan at 8:48 PM on April 26, 2017

It's an interesting situation because the legal and ethical ramifications all depend on the cost of the technology. Ten years ago, if I wanted to spy on you in your backyard, I'd have to rent a helicopter and a telephoto lens -- that certainly did happen (think news organizations) but people seemed to be OK with it because the barriers were so high. But now that anyone can do it for $1000 (and in a few years, $50), our ethical intuition has changed. Either there will be more regulations, or society will adapt and privacy-conscious people will string up sheer fabric over their backyard pools.
posted by miyabo at 8:51 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

rtha: "What? I guess you missed the comment I was referring to?

For that matter, did you miss all the other comments from and about women concerned (justifiably, because it's not exactly rare!) about being perved on by men? What even is this comment?"

Sorry I guess that came across as a call out; I was just observing out loud and wasn't intending to cast dispersion or blame. I just found it bizarre ( in the "very strange or unusual, especially so as to cause interest or amusement" sense) that the concern of the parents in that one particular incident was mostly about the about the girls in swimsuits and not the children in general. Sorry I attached your handle to the reference.
posted by Mitheral at 8:56 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

miyabo: " Ten years ago, if I wanted to spy on you in your backyard, I'd have to rent a helicopter and a telephoto lens -- that certainly did happen (think news organizations) but people seemed to be OK with it because the barriers were so high. But now that anyone can do it for $1000 (and in a few years, $50), our ethical intuition has changed. Either there will be more regulations, or society will adapt and privacy-conscious people will string up sheer fabric over their backyard pools."

Similiar to the way assorted court/legal records being public wasn't much of a problem when you had to physically visit the courthouse that made the record to view them (one at a time) but putting them on a searchable internet site introduced a slew of privacy concerns.
posted by Mitheral at 8:59 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

Telephoto lenses are cheaper than most drones capable of taking decent quality video for anything more than a couple of minutes.

Telephoto lenses in the hands of a human need to have direct line of sight from likely ground level to the place people don't want photos or video being taken. This is immensely different from a drone that is able to hover at basically any height, looking straight into a window.

By way of example, most of the rear-facing windows on the second floor of my house do not have coverings, but I'm not concerned about someone with a hand-held camera -- they would literally have to be 30+ feet up in a tree in the woods behind my house to see anything but the top of someone's head (due to the steep slope behind the house). A drone, though, could trivially spy in through those windows, or even the skylights.

This is true in cities, as well. You can easily have a situation where getting an unobstructed view with a hand-held telephoto lens into a high apartment window would be nearly impossible, but doing the same with a drone is trivial.

This is not that hard, and I feel like the pro-drone crowd is being willfully obtuse about it. Drones are fundamentally different in their capabilities. They do things that either couldn't be done before, or couldn't be done without a whole lot of money (comparatively). They pose significant and specific risks to privacy, and people are as pissed as they are because right now almost nobody in the technophile camp nor the law and order camp is taking it seriously.

Oh, and in case you thought somehow it wouldn't be the case: yes, there is already widely available porn shot from drones, claiming to have been taken without the knowledge of those depicted.
posted by tocts at 8:59 PM on April 26, 2017 [14 favorites]

Taking away the anonymity of the drone operator would reduce some of the public anger. It would be trivial and cheap to require all drones to transmit a 32-bit identification number receivable within 100 yards of anyone with a $10 receiver on a key ring. The fact that the drone operator knows they are identifiable would reduce the likelihood of annoying behavior by most operators.

Disabling of the ID device on a drone would be prima facie evidence of a crime, the same as driving around with a obscured license plate.
posted by JackFlash at 9:01 PM on April 26, 2017 [6 favorites]

The other night, a drone with a camera facing toward the building was literally a few feet away from my balcony and was clearly spying on people who thought they had some privacy. Regardless of the law, it felt like a huge violation.

Unless you saw the camera and which direction it was pointing it could just as easily have been one of your neighbors playing around with their new toy or even someone who just wanted to see what your view was like. I don't think people should be flying their drones near people's windows under any circumstances, but that doesn't mean we should assume bad intentions, either.
posted by wierdo at 9:05 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

I'm pretty OK with putting the burden of proof on the person flying an untraceable camera platform outside apartment windows, honestly.
posted by tocts at 9:13 PM on April 26, 2017 [12 favorites]

Imagine your neighbor has a stationary security camera that overlooks their yard in the foreground but, incidentally, also overlooks a portion of your yard in the background. Would you be justified shooting that camera? If that camera was robotic to the extent that allowed it to, say, pan, tilt and zoom, would you be justified in shooting that camera? How about if it was mounted on a robotic gantry or arm or tower that greatly expanded the camera's potential view. Is that camera justifiably shootable? If the camera was mounted on a tethered balloon, is that shootable?
posted by bz at 9:31 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

How about if you caught that robotic arm stretched across your backyard to your upstairs window, pointing the camera inside your bedroom? Is this a game of sibling back seat "I'm not touching you!" while pointing a finger in the other's face?
posted by ctmf at 9:34 PM on April 26, 2017 [6 favorites]

It would be trivial and cheap to require all drones to transmit a 32-bit identification number receivable within 100 yards of anyone with a $10 receiver on a key ring.

I have zero problem with something like this, but you didn't see me complaining about the FAA's visible identification rule, either. I suspect people would flip their shit in much the same way as some pilots are flipping out about ADS-B being required on most private planes because they don't want their location constantly broadcast to the world, never mind the ginormous registration number painted on the side of their airplane.

If the cost could be made reasonable, I'd be all for requiring drones that weigh more than a few pounds to have a (low powered) UAT transmitter sending location, altitude, and registration info just like any other aircraft. It would enable easier policing of abuse as well as make them visible to nearby aircraft (and ATC if they were close enough to an airport or other restricted area), thus eliminating some of the safety concerns, maybe even enough to convince the FAA to allow the use of experimental FPV drones in some circumstances. All to the good from my perspective.
posted by wierdo at 9:39 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

A neighbor went door-to-door distributing a paper with a photo of his lost drone and a plea to return it if found because "it kamikazied down the street somewhere." No asshole it didn't 'kamikazi' you lost control of your toy because you're inept. Had I found it on my roof, no way you're getting it back -- damn thing could've come down on grandma's head.

Yeah, netguns for everybody. Or just powerful water-hoses.
posted by Rash at 9:54 PM on April 26, 2017

By the way, I owe pleem an apology. I talked about giving people the benefit of the doubt and not assuming where a camera is pointed or whether it even exists in response to their comment that specifically stated that a camera was visible and what direction it was pointed. I was reading too quickly and missed it, but that doesn't excuse my dismissiveness. Sorry about that.
posted by wierdo at 9:59 PM on April 26, 2017 [2 favorites]

JackFlash: " It would be trivial and cheap to require all drones to transmit a 32-bit identification number receivable within 100 yards of anyone with a $10 receiver on a key ring."

The last time we were talking about this I suggested an LED that flashed the ID number in something like Morse. Human readable and record-able by the camera in everyone's pocket. Super cheap (practically free really), lightweight, doesn't pollute a wireless band.
posted by Mitheral at 10:06 PM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

I like the LED solution a lot, since the drone pilots get privacy if they're not in range. If you can see the LED, the drone can see you -- if you can't, nothing to worry about. It could be a narrow band infrared LED similar to a TV remote.
posted by miyabo at 10:48 PM on April 26, 2017 [1 favorite]

This would be pretty odd. We don't ban tape recorders, cameras, lasers, etc. outright.

Yet.

Of course, based on this metafilter conversation, it should be perfectly acceptable to snap off a couple shots if someone aims a camera at you. I mean, as long as you're aiming for the camera and not the operator, it's OK, right? 'Cause MERICA!
posted by happyroach at 11:17 PM on April 26, 2017 [3 favorites]

If you can see the LED, the drone can see you -- if you can't, nothing to worry about.

An LED would warn you when it was too late, wouldn't it? The drone pops up over your hedge and starts taking pictures before you detect it and react. No early warning if the snoop is sneaky. And it could be behind you like the man in the panto. A radio signal would tell your home security system that a drone is just outside your home, regardless of the current line of sight.

And an LED probably would be easier to temporarily disable -- stick a piece of tape over it or maybe even some mud or a leaf (for plausible deniability). "I landed it in the field first. It must have picked up some mud there." Whereas an always-on signal transmitter integrated into the controller would require more work on the part of peepers. They would have to disable and enable an integrated transmitter not made to be disabled and enabled on the fly.
posted by pracowity at 2:00 AM on April 27, 2017 [1 favorite]

I feel like the actual mood of this thread and the rhetorically-posited mood of this thread are not the same.

I don't think I've ever seen a drone in the wild where I live (I mean, aside from on CMU's campus), so my feelings are purely theoretical and thus not that strong but I see a lot of conflating "shooting at them is unsafe and I wouldn't do it, but I understand the impulse" with advocating open season bullets flying kill em all and let god sort em out wild west style violence. These sentiments are not the same.
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:34 AM on April 27, 2017 [11 favorites]

See, I don't even think photos are the essential thing....I don't want drones lurking around my private domicile, where I will not be harassed, whether or not they have cameras or LEDs or RFID tags ID-ing the owner.
posted by thelonius at 4:53 AM on April 27, 2017 [3 favorites]

It would be trivial and cheap to require all drones to transmit a 32-bit identification number receivable within 100 yards of anyone with a $10 receiver on a key ring.

I'm going to invent an imaginary neighborhood where one-teacher-income teachers with kids live. It's called Dobbin Wood. The residents of Dobbin Wood have a finite amount of time and attention to give to defending their privacy. Jeanine, who lives there, also does not want to have to be the weird one checking all the drones, and her tiny (or non-existent) pockets do not have room for another fob on her key ring. Also, she has never heard of this technology.
posted by amtho at 5:31 AM on April 27, 2017 [6 favorites]

Good points pracowity; we should require both. The LED for easy access identification; the transmitter for non line of sight identification.
posted by Mitheral at 5:57 AM on April 27, 2017

"Drones are bad because they lower the barrier of entry for creepers!"

"Ok, some sort of RF or optical transponder might alleviate those concerns a bit"

"Creepers will just disable the transponder, they're a devoted lot!"
posted by 7segment at 6:17 AM on April 27, 2017

Also, I think we're about to see the coming of microdrones. When a 25-gram drone smaller than your palm can record 4k video, people will stop worrying about drones.... because they won't even see them from any distance. A lot of the fear around current drones is just because they're large, noisy, and intimidating.
posted by miyabo at 7:03 AM on April 27, 2017 [1 favorite]

Creepers will just disable the transponder

Like license plates on a car -- you can take off the plates or use fakes, but then they have something else to get you for.

If a drone is not sending a proper signal, the peeper's "Oh, I must have accidentally and totally by chance parked my drone in mid air just outside her bathroom window" grows a tale: "...and I guess I accidentally somehow snipped right through the power line for the legally required transponder."
posted by pracowity at 7:15 AM on April 27, 2017

> When a 25-gram drone smaller than your palm can record 4k video, people will stop worrying about drones.... because they won't even see them from any distance. A lot of the fear around current drones is just because they're large, noisy, and intimidating.

The future's so bright, I gotta keep my shades drawn.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:49 AM on April 27, 2017 [7 favorites]

A lot of the fear around current drones is just because they're large, noisy, and intimidating.

I disagree, and I think this underestimates the very educated, very aware population of even small-town Georgia.
posted by amtho at 9:47 AM on April 27, 2017 [7 favorites]

There are a number of reasons why people are wigged out by drones:

1. Many of them are large and heavy and, when flown above crowds of people, present a very reasonable perceived risk of suddenly dropping out of the sky and hurting people.

2. They are primarily used for photography and videography. Regardless of size, people in general don't like being filmed or photographed by strangers. The law may be murky on that front, but we should respect the wishes of our neighbors on that front, yes? A drone hovering outside of your bathroom window - even a tiny one! - is an affront to common decency and can cause completely understandable distress.

3. The operator(s) of the drones are often out of sight or at the very least not easy to identify. This makes the drones themselves creepy, as they are just flying spy robots. Who isn't freaked out by flying spy robots?

For these reasons alone, drones should be closely regulated. Commercial and research drones probably already go through a thorough licensing and registration process, and operators of those drones are unlikely to engage in activity which would cause people to react violently. The real issue is with amateur drone operators for whom the activity is primarily pleasure-oriented. Ground rules and regulations and laws need to be laid down to clearly delineate acceptable from unacceptable behaviors, because it is very easy for one person's "fun zoom through the neighborhood" to become someone else's "traumatizing invasion of privacy" and just shouting at each other isn't going to fix the problem.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:08 AM on April 27, 2017 [2 favorites]

i would like to see the crosstabs on people who hate drones but love, love, love jetpacks and flying cars
posted by entropicamericana at 10:12 AM on April 27, 2017 [1 favorite]

I mean, I hate mosquitoes but love space whales and unicorns?
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:14 AM on April 27, 2017 [8 favorites]

Add liability insurance to the list of requirements for drones over a certain weight threshold.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:24 AM on April 27, 2017 [4 favorites]

You do realize that most hobbyist drones weigh under 5 lbs and are mostly made of plastic, right?

If you think that makes a significant difference for safety, I have a canned ham I'm willing to drop on your head from a fifth floor window just to see how it goes.

In Seattle, a man crashed a 2-pound drone into a woman at a Gay Pride parade knocking her unconscious and giving her a concussion. He was convicted of reckless endangerment and sentenced to 30 days in jail but is appealing the sentence as "too severe" -- for nearly killing someone with his 2-pound drone.
posted by JackFlash at 10:43 AM on April 27, 2017 [10 favorites]

Look, what's crazy to me is that I even have to be the anti-drone person -- because on a theoretical level, I am fucking psyched about their applicability to cinematography, photography, search & rescue, wildlife monitoring / management, general science usage, etc.

Seriously: they are really cool!

However, in practice, I cannot help but be really turned off by the fact that both the nascent industry around drones and the hobbyist groups that have sprung up seem to be really uninterested in the privacy concerns. The technology has been moving at a crazy pace in the past few years, and it seems like always the approach is to center the debate on the rights of the operator or the potential good uses, while leaving the very real and serious privacy concerns sidelined.

None of the (completely valid) privacy concerns around drones should have been a surprise to anyone. The industry and the hobbyists could have, long ago, helped get real regulations in place so that drones can be used responsibly. Instead, the focus has always been on lighter and faster and better cameras and better controls and DON'T YOU DARE SAY YOU WANT TO REGULATE US!!!

So yeah: a lot of people are some combination of pissed off or freaked out by drones, and I don't view this as being the fault of anyone so much as the industry and the drone users themselves. And yes, while firing a gun at a drone is a stupid thing to do, I 100% completely understand the impulse to disable / destroy drones creeping around your home, given the state of their anonymity and lack of regulation at the moment.

I basically have zero problems with anyone who wants to hunt the things with net launchers for sport, at this point. You want that to change, drone people? Lobby for some common-sense regulation of your hobby.
posted by tocts at 10:44 AM on April 27, 2017 [11 favorites]

because it is very easy for one person's "fun zoom through the neighborhood" to become someone else's "traumatizing invasion of privacy" and just shouting at each other isn't going to fix the problem.

Of course, but this being the United States, I'm thinking just like guns, we'll probably end up with a federal impasse and a patchwork of state, county, and city laws that vary from place to place. I'm sure some big corporations, the rich, and celebrities also will have their own ideas and probably will start installing devices mounted at the edges of their property, tops of their buildings, on their islands, or maybe even when they're out around town that can serve as some kind of "invisible wall" against drones. Either blocking signals directly (dangerous, cause they might crash) or temporarily wrenching control away from the operator to autopilot away from the area. And inevitably some of the devices will filter down to the consumer level, because someone will figure out a way to make money on one side making drones and someone on the other side will figure out a way to make money making sure they don't fly where they aren't supposed to.
posted by FJT at 11:08 AM on April 27, 2017

Oh, and I'm not presenting this equilibrium as a positive outcome. I just think this is the most likely scenario based on my understanding how the US works (or doesn't).
posted by FJT at 11:20 AM on April 27, 2017

Every iteration of technology that has privacy implications goes through *exactly* this same sequence of events:

* hey, we've got something cool and new!
* people who use OUR stuff will never do anything weird with it
* people who complain about creepers using our stuff are exaggerating; there's no need to regulate
* oh, hey, there are creepers using our stuff. Let's implement more technology, not to stop them, but to warn other people that there might be creepers.

It's to the point that I imagine every new technology creator as Chris Knight in Real Genius, and I'm waiting for the moment that they realize that, yes, this laser will ALSO be used to kill people.
posted by hanov3r at 11:34 AM on April 27, 2017 [21 favorites]

This is the only news coverage of something strange and kinda scary that happened around here yesterday.

If this had happened over my farm I'm not sure what I'd do.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 12:54 PM on April 27, 2017

In Seattle, a man crashed a 2-pound drone into a woman at a Gay Pride parade knocking her unconscious and giving her a concussion. He was convicted of reckless endangerment and sentenced to 30 days in jail but is appealing the sentence as "too severe" -- for nearly killing someone with his 2-pound drone.

Meanwhile, there were 473 collisions between cars and pedestrians in Seattle in 2014, six of them fatal. I would be surprised if more than the tiniest fraction were charged with anything, much less convicted, much less again saw jailtime. Maybe the drivers were all simultaneously piloting drones or something.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:01 PM on April 27, 2017

Meanwhile, there were 473 collisions between cars and pedestrians in Seattle in 2014, six of them fatal. I would be surprised if more than the tiniest fraction were charged with anything, much less convicted, much less again saw jailtime. Maybe the drivers were all simultaneously piloting drones or something.

I don't understand why the car thing keeps being dragged in here? I mean - most places you at least have to pass both a written and skill demonstration test, pay a fee and get a license. I can go out and buy a drone right now and take it for a spin. I don't have to demonstrate any knowledge or flying skill whatsoever, which makes the "yeah - but cars hurt people" argument kind of weird to me and I don't see how they are related.
posted by Gyre,Gimble,Wabe, Esq. at 1:08 PM on April 27, 2017 [7 favorites]

People being harmed in one domain doesn't have to mean allowing harms in other domains. Even though a lot of people get sick from cancer or prescription drug mishaps, I'm not ready to stop trying to prevent food poisoning.
posted by amtho at 1:09 PM on April 27, 2017 [4 favorites]

My point is the odds of you being hurt or killed by an automobile are many times higher than that of the same happening by a hobbyist drone, which is so rare I cannot find actual statistics on it, just anecdotes.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:14 PM on April 27, 2017 [1 favorite]

Would that still be true if there were as many drones as cars in this country? Of course not.

Put a different way - your risk of being killed by a car is much higher than your risk of being killed by an AK-47. We should still regulate AK-47s.
posted by R a c h e l at 1:26 PM on April 27, 2017 [5 favorites]

Actually, I just thought about what I said more and my logic isn't exactly sound. I guess what I'm saying is, regulation should follow the level of danger-to-others per use - and the argument here is that the level of danger per use of drones is high enough that it merits regulation (as oppose to, say, kitchen knives...occasionally dangerous, but not a high level of risk to others per use).
posted by R a c h e l at 1:32 PM on April 27, 2017 [1 favorite]

1) There are harms other than being killed or injured.

2) The level of resentment that builds because of the optics of drone usage is also a real harm.

3) The number of deaths or injuries per drone use compared to car deaths and injuries per car trip (rather than deaths or injuries caused by drones across the gross population) would be a more meaningful metric related to what you're talking about.

4) Most car owners in the US are required to carry expensive liability insurance because driving cars poses such a large risk.
posted by amtho at 1:40 PM on April 27, 2017 [1 favorite]

5) The relative benefits of people driving cars vs. people using drones for fun should be a factor also.
posted by amtho at 1:41 PM on April 27, 2017

In California, in the last few years, wildfire-fighting efforts were interrupted a number of times by private drones. Low-flying aircraft used to fight the fires can't fly when the drones - which occupy their airspace - are around. Cal Fire is really pissed about it.
posted by rtha at 1:56 PM on April 27, 2017 [8 favorites]

Drones are not easily comparable to motor vehicles or guns. These are not helpful analogies.
posted by aspersioncast at 1:56 PM on April 27, 2017 [1 favorite]

If it's obviously surveilling my family and I can manage to bring it down, you ain't getting it back, bud.

Pretty much my reaction, and I don't even have a family.

But guns? Like shooting down the drone with bullets? Dude. That's the stupidest, plus you scare all the girls. That's like, if a dragon is hovering outside the window and creeping on the princess, and then you kill the dragon by breathing fire and spitting acid at it, and then demand the princess sacrifice her sister to satiate your demonic hunger in return for slaying the dragon. You don't get the princess like that. Get you a hero's gun. That way, it's like you slay the dragon and then have a beach party. I heard princesses are totally into that.
posted by saysthis at 3:07 PM on April 27, 2017 [1 favorite]

And while I'm on it, drones are like cars the way pet skunks are like pet dogs. Dogs are way more common, dangerous, conventionally harmful, and more heavily regulated, but people are way more afraid of skunks. But which one is more likely to simply kill/maim you, and which one is more likely to make life unpleasant?

Also, skunks are much lighter and more likely to be attached to drones, and much more effective than dogs attached to cars.

You're welcome for that analogy.
posted by saysthis at 3:26 PM on April 27, 2017 [2 favorites]

If someone could create an image of a skunk riding a drone, it would be greatly appreciated. In this case, the camera would have to be pointed at the drone itself, so we're all OK with that, right?

I figure the fantasies of violence against surveillance drones in inappropriate places are similar to my long-standing plan in case I ever encounter an upskirt camera setup: stomp it into smithereens. I have no particular hate for cameras any more than I do for drones, but that's my plan. Guns would be both less satisfying and less safe for everyone around, so let's not do that.
posted by asperity at 3:44 PM on April 27, 2017 [3 favorites]

"plus you scare all the girls"

Why girls, specifically?
posted by ctmf at 6:24 PM on April 27, 2017

There's a little too much focus on safety here. Drones will become physically safer but more intrusive.

In terms of privacy, a big, noisy, unsafe drone that everyone can see and hear is a thousand times better than a drone that registers in your subconscious as a bumblebee hovering over your picnic or resting on your window sill. A small drone could land while you're out, turn off its buzzing engines, turn on its microphone, and listen for you to return.
posted by pracowity at 11:05 PM on April 27, 2017 [2 favorites]

"plus you scare all the girls"

Why girls, specifically?
posted by ctmf at 10:24 AM on April 28 [+] [!]

*12-year old boy voice* WHY?! Dude! Because...you're supposed to impress girls! And like, if you're trying to impress girls with your big manly gun by shooting down the creeper drone, that's like...that's not how you get girls! Ricky up the block told me it's like competing versions of the violence enabled by the toxic masculinity at the core of our culture that perpetuates voyeuristic behavior in the first place, a reckless and potentially lethal display of simian chest-beating in response to the same perverse male dominance instinct that makes idiots with drones think its okay to peer through windows and makes the rest of us look on such behavior with a sort of begrudging tolerance because we ourselves engage in such displays or simply feel resigned and powerless to stop it, when the proper response would be to take down the drone in a more clever and non-hazardous-to-life way, like with a squirt gun, and then get a sweet badass lawyer to take your case pro bono and win the civil suit! Why would a girl like you if you're shooting popshots into the sky in a populated area! Girls aren't into that, they think that's scary! Like, if a girl wanted to kiss me, and then shot an Uzi in the air because she wanted to be my girlfriend, I might kiss her because kissing, but I'd be scared of her and I'd be like, my girlfriend is a raging maniac! You're not supposed to behave recklessly with firearms around girls if you want a girlfriend, just like you're not supposed to stare through their window in the bathroom! Ricky's mom lets him watch R-rated movies and he talks to a 15-year old girl from League of Legends online, and he went to gun safety training with Jessica from home room, so Ricky knows stuff about impressing girls!

In fact, Ricky's advice is kind of just good generally. I don't think I'd shoot guns in the air to impress Ricky either, or anyone of any age. But I'm America's obsession with juvenile masculinity, and I'm eternally 12, and all I think about forever is explosions, farts, and girls, so, specifically girls.
posted by saysthis at 12:24 AM on April 28, 2017

shooting video through someone's bathroom window isn't going to get you anything you can't see on the internet a million times over

Yes and no. The internet can get you tits, but probably not your neighbour's tits. And I don't mind people looking at tits (consensually) I mind them looking at mine (or others', non-consensually). If it were a simple as "eh, there are other tits on the internet" you wouldn't have an entire industry dedicated to stolen or papped celebrity nudes.
posted by Dysk at 1:46 AM on April 28, 2017 [11 favorites]

I've read this whole thread and I keep hearing about this crazy thirst for drone blood but I'm not seeing it anywhere... was it deleted at some point? Because without it the people ranting about the poor drones rights sound rather unhinged to put it charitably.
posted by some loser at 7:03 AM on April 28, 2017 [8 favorites]

as opposed to all the helen lovejoys asking wont someone please think of the children
posted by entropicamericana at 7:51 AM on April 28, 2017

The Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College just released Drone Incidents: A Survey Of Legal Cases, which includes pretty much all the categories being discussed in this thread: invasion of privacy, shootdowns, crashes, etc. It's short, and gives a good background.
posted by jjwiseman at 9:04 AM on April 28, 2017 [2 favorites]

I've read this whole thread and I keep hearing about this crazy thirst for drone blood but I'm not seeing it anywhere... was it deleted at some point? Because without it the people ranting about the poor drones rights sound rather unhinged to put it charitably.

Its the same persecution complex that showed up from google glass wearers too.
posted by Iax at 10:45 PM on April 28, 2017 [5 favorites]

Why don't people just fly kites instead? Much cheaper and I hear you can climb mountains with them.
posted by eustatic at 2:34 PM on April 29, 2017

A) you need wind; b) they can't be flown a lot of places (people, power lines etc) C) they aren't nearly as controllable.
posted by Mitheral at 4:46 PM on April 29, 2017

I'd be a little concerned about people flying drones in places where kites would be a problem. Your drone isn't going to earth transmission lines through your body like a kite, true, but it could still damage them and you should probably go play with your toy somewhere else instead.
posted by Dysk at 12:29 AM on April 30, 2017 [2 favorites]

Well, I wanted to know what all the fuss was about, so I ordered a drone. I've never even touched one before. It's just a very small drone (QX90) that is no danger to anyone and also would be useless for spying. I guess I'll report back the next time there's a drone post.
posted by miyabo at 8:25 PM on May 1, 2017

It would be most instructive if you gave the drone to a bored teenager who lives near you... Just saying...
posted by amtho at 8:33 PM on May 1, 2017 [1 favorite]

This paper by Kristen Thomasen, "Beyond Airspace Safety: Feminist Perspectives on Drone Regulation and Privacy in Public", seems directly relevant to some specific directions this thread has taken:

In recent years, the impact of drones on women, and in particular, women's privacy, has
sometimes gained sensational attention in popular discussions, from spying on sunbathing women,
to delivering abortion pills to women who otherwise lack access.2 Nevertheless, the ways in which
drone technology can enhance or undermine women's privacy, and more specifically, the role the
law might play in influencing this dynamic, has not yet received significant academic attention. This
paper proposes to do just that. It takes a step back from sensationalized media stories to consider
drone privacy issues through a gendered lens, permitting further analysis of the current North
American approach to drone regulation. This feminist perspective is relevant to the drone regulation
debate particularly in light of the (sometimes granular) ways in which the drone’s gendered impact
has already come under scrutiny in popular discussions; by providing a new and critical lens through
which to analyze the difficult challenges of drone privacy regulation; and by affirming some of the
ways in which drone technology can perpetuate both positive and negative social values, at a time
when laws guiding the permissible use and design of the technology (or the absence of such law)
continue to influence the trajectory of innovation.

For instance, drone technology might embody and entrench aspects of the male gaze that are
un- or under-protected by law; perpetuate or alter forms of street harassment, creating unequal
access to and enjoyment of public space; collect information that can be used to make decisions that
may be detrimental individual or groups of women,3 meanwhile lending anonymity and opacity to
the drone owner by virtue of the drone's capacity to be discreet and fly at a distance from the pilot,
without conveying information about the purpose of the operation or what is being collected. This
informational imbalance further amplifies inequitable outcomes of drone use. At the same time,
drone technology might facilitate access to information, supplies, and transportation/delivery that
would otherwise be denied to women facing certain disadvantages, potentially enhancing women’s
privacy in the form of bodily autonomy and decisional privacy.

posted by jjwiseman at 12:04 PM on May 11, 2017 [1 favorite]

...and now you no longer have to register your drone: "Drone pilots don’t have to register under FAA’s controversial rule, court rules"
posted by jjwiseman at 11:44 AM on May 19, 2017