TX and NH to ban non-governmental aerial photography--impact on our hobby?

Shop deals on ebay
rocket sok
shop deals on amazon
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
SCE to AUX

SCE to AUX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
905
Reaction score
3
Looks like Texas and New Hampshire are considering legislation ostensibly aimed at surveillance via UAVs and drone aircraft, but (as is typical with these things) so broadly worded as to make strapping a keychain camera onto a model rocket a crime unless you get the explicit permission of the owner of every square inch of land your images might capture.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/03/01/153241/texas-declares-war-on-robots
 
I know the big kite folks won't be happy about that either. Just like the government... stupid.
 
So that also means if I launch a key chain camera on a rocket, I have to get all of the peoples permission on the video to post in a public forum?
 
I do not think that these new laws will have a major impact on this hobby. Most of our images are of spinning earth during flight and what is captured is often a blured and low quality. Also, our intent is to capture flight performance and not spying on the neighbors sunbathing. After 30 years of law enforcement in Washington State, I have learned and been told by a judge, what is observed from the air is not a violation of privacy, under the in-plain-view doctrine and there is no expectation of privacy. Now, a hovering drone looking into your bedroom windows, is a violation of your privacy, as you expect your activities to be private. I personally believe that it would be very hard to prosecute a person flying a rocket with a keychain camera under these laws. Lets let the courts decide the issues and that being said, we should continue to fly our rockets with the cameras attached for flight characteristics.
 
I think it is misplaced legislation. Even if i lived there, i wouldnt care about my rockets camera. Its not arial photography... its rocket photography.
I think it gives them a false sence of security that people like private investigators cant use an RC helecopter from filming a cheating couple on a 3rd floor hotel room balcony.

Also, a lot of companys pay high dollar for proffesional arial photography. I know a real estate agent who lists thier properites that way. Its not done with a drone, but a cessna...
I dont see this going away. I would do it, if I could promote my buisness. I have a right to do so.


Its funny, texas hasent gone after google earth for privacy invasion, why now would "from the air" be so important.
 
I think they have it bassackwards. They should ban governmental aerial photography and leave the public alone.
 
Who's going to stop anyone from taking an aerial pic?
 
What about news camera's in helicopters to get traffic reports?
Power companies that photograph power lines?
 
The Texas law is so broadly worded that *ALL* photography not done by human intervention is illegal. This includes weather satellites and geomaping satellites like google earth.
 
tightwad said:
I do not think that these new laws will have a major impact on this hobby. Most of our images are of spinning earth during flight and what is captured is often a blured and low quality. Also, our intent is to capture flight performance and not spying on the neighbors sunbathing. After 30 years of law enforcement in Washington State, I have learned and been told by a judge, what is observed from the air is not a violation of privacy, under the in-plain-view doctrine and there is no expectation of privacy. Now, a hovering drone looking into your bedroom windows, is a violation of your privacy, as you expect your activities to be private. I personally believe that it would be very hard to prosecute a person flying a rocket with a keychain camera under these laws. Lets let the courts decide the issues and that being said, we should continue to fly our rockets with the cameras attached for flight characteristics.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just looking at this from an enforcement perspective, I see this as a "how" do you enforce it??

First you have to have a complaint... who's gonna know if your rocket, plane, kite, balloon, etc. has a camera on it, unless you tell them it does. If you have a jerk for a neighbor or something, WHY would you advertise the fact and give them ammunition?? Then there's the whole "expectation of privacy" thing mentioned, and the whole proving of "intent"... unless you're hovering a helicopter equipped with a hi-def camera outside some Hooter girls bedroom window, it's gonn be pretty hard to prove there was an intent to violate someone privacy.

Then there's the whole prosecution thing... what DA in their right mind would waste time and effort taking this to trial (unless it was some aforementioned type of lewd spying or something of that sort, clearly with a criminal intent) when the system is already overloaded as it is?? I don't see it.

I think this is more idiots making laws just for the sake of making laws... they cannot even figure out how to fund education in Texas (which is headed for a train wreck of mammoth proportions if the gubmint don't "do something") so they fiddle and argue over minutea like this... idiocy...

But then again, what can you expect from GUBMINT??

Heck, they AUGHT to be worried about drones surveillance and targeting of citizens without due process, but you'll note their not even touching that one (except Seattle, which recently banned drone surveillance of their citizens without due process (warrant or exigent circumstances I'd suppose).

Later! OL JR :)
 
ClayD said:
I think it is misplaced legislation. Even if i lived there, i wouldnt care about my rockets camera. Its not arial photography... its rocket photography.
I think it gives them a false sence of security that people like private investigators cant use an RC helecopter from filming a cheating couple on a 3rd floor hotel room balcony.

Also, a lot of companys pay high dollar for proffesional arial photography. I know a real estate agent who lists thier properites that way. Its not done with a drone, but a cessna...
I dont see this going away. I would do it, if I could promote my buisness. I have a right to do so.


Its funny, texas hasent gone after google earth for privacy invasion, why now would "from the air" be so important.
Click to expand...

Exactly... and you'd be surprised at some of the "professional" camera aerial camera outfits out there today... there are some businesses that use RC rotorcraft (generally the multi-rotor "spider" looking ones with 4-6 small rotors versus a single rotor or dual rotors, which tend to create more vibration) in concert with GOOD high-end high definition cameras, many equipped with live downlinks and real-time first-person view capabilities, mounted on vibration isolated and often stabilized or servo-steerable "mini-steadycam" type platforms to do high quality, high definition aerial photography, crop or land use monitoring for farms, ranches, or other businesses, resource surveys, mapping, real estate advertising photography, business site photography, oil and gas lease photography (which is big in the Shiner area now-- I've seen NUMEROUS flyers in the area advertising such a service), and many other uses besides filming the Hooters girl down the street... And even with equipment running into the thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars, compared to the operating costs of a small civil aviation airplane, it's STILL a HUGE bargain to do it with "drones"... heck, they're even coming up with stuff to take the "RC pilot" out of the loop-- autopilots capable of flying the vehicle along a pre-programmed course, speed, and altitude using GPS or ground reference signal guidance to do the photography runs, some even capable of being updated in flight to account for changes or additional desired shots or positions.

I don't see this sort of proposal getting much traction, and generating a LOT of blowback from such business folks... this sort of aerial photography has become BIG business lately... lot of money at stake, and I don't think politicians are going to be willing to face the heat these folks can bring to bear for the nonexistant/negligible gains that such a law MIGHT have...

I'm not worried about the neighbors spying on me... I don't want the GUBMINT sending their spy drones over, and these laws would do NOTHING to prevent that anyway... heck USDA used Landsat photos to prosecute farmers for fraud in several states, after farmers filed "crop failure" benefits claims and the Landsat photos clearly showed that the fields in question had NEVER BEEN PLANTED...

Next thing you know, the gubmint will be zipping over our homes all the time, for everything from tax valuation to "environmental enforcement" to who knows what... the sky is literally the limit... the GUBMINT is the ones we need to outlaw from spying on us from the air...

Later! OL JR :)
 
sooner.boomer said:
The Texas law is so broadly worded that *ALL* photography not done by human intervention is illegal. This includes weather satellites and geomaping satellites like google earth.
Click to expand...

Such a 'junk law' will never survive its first challenge in court... too broad and ill-defined...

Stupidity of gubmint never ceases to amaze me...

The legislature here SHOULD be working seriously on school finance reform and stuff, since the school districts and teachers unions are about to file some MAJOR high-powered lawsuits because of the way the state is mishandling education funding-- they've put band-aids on top of band-aids for so long it's not even funny, without fixing the severed artery first...

Instead they do crap like this-- sit and pick gnat-sh!t out of pepper...

Later! OL JR :)
 
They possibly should have laws that allow them to prosecute people doing bad things. I don't see how that wouldn't be covered by other laws however. It also presents the possibility of hassling people any enforcers don't like. Very typical.
 
From some of the HD video I have seen from the big time quadcopter drones, I think there really is an opportunity for "peeping" as well as the intrusion of the government in our "bidness".

While I'm considering the purchase of a mini-drone (6" diameter) for living room indoor aerobatics, the concept of outdoor video drones is troubling on many levels.

Should some entrepreneur come up with an anti-drone artillery system? A radio that interferes with the R/C control of said drones? I dunno.
 
The thread title is rather alarmist. Those bills aren't going to get anywhere in the state legistatures. There are too many legitimate uses of unmanned aerial photography.

The proposed NH bill mentioned in the slashdot article didn't even make it to a committee hearing. It's been dramatically changed to a proposal to ban drones which carry weapons.

-- Roger
 
Marc_G said:
I will need to study this issue thoroughly.

JR, please send me the Hooters Girl surveillance video of which you spoke...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wish... you and me both... LOL:)

I read about this last night, and it's pretty clear what their intention is... this is a circular roundabout way to prevent enviro-whackos from using RC aircraft with camera systems (IE "drones") to gather evidence from behind locked gates and fences of environmental or pollution issues, and then using the "evidence" thusly obtained to file lawsuits or complaints with state regulatory or enforcement agencies...

By making the act of recording video evidence (or collecting air samples for analysis, odor detection, etc, which is all mentioned in the law) via remote control illegal, that does two things-- first, it makes the "evidence" null and void, since evidence illegally obtained is not admissable, and secondly, it opens up the person or group filing a complaint based on such evidence open to having criminal charges filed against them for their "illegally" obtaining said evidence. It's pretty transparent that that is the purpose of the Texas law, simply by the way it's worded. They don't want Sierra Club nutjobs flying "drones" over feedlots in the Panhandle, or refineries on the Gulf Coast, or anywhere in between, trying to get "photographic evidence" of pollution or environmental "violations" and then using that "evidence" to file legal complaints or file lawsuits against the companies in question or the gov't for "selective enforcement" or whatever...

Changing the evidentiary rules to prohibit such "drone photo evidence" would be messy and too obvious... it'd open up a can of worms they don't want to open, not publicly... so passing this law does that in a very circular way to achieve the same thing... they're not worried about people using toy helicopters to photograph their real estate offerings, or people photographing farms or businesses or oil leases from the air and selling the photos to the landowners (which there are flyers up all over Shiner advertising "we photograph your oil lease from high altitude and frame the photos! Call us!" and that sort of thing... it's all aimed at preventing the greenie nutjobs from stirring up trouble, because the first question any LE officer or regulator taking a "complaint" from one of these groups about a pollution or environmental violator is going to ask the complainant is "how did you come to get evidence of this?? Did you have the owner's permission?? Without that, YOU are in violation, and therefore get out before I file charges on YOU..."

Can't speak to the NH law, but in all likelyhood it's something similar...

Later! OL JR :)
 
o1d_dude said:
From some of the HD video I have seen from the big time quadcopter drones, I think there really is an opportunity for "peeping" as well as the intrusion of the government in our "bidness".

While I'm considering the purchase of a mini-drone (6" diameter) for living room indoor aerobatics, the concept of outdoor video drones is troubling on many levels.

Should some entrepreneur come up with an anti-drone artillery system? A radio that interferes with the R/C control of said drones? I dunno.
Click to expand...

Yeah, go to the RCGroups forums and you can see vids from some HIGH END systems-- and they are EXTREMELY cool... and yeah, it's VERY easy to see how this technology can be abused...

Note that the laws mentioned here make NO mention of the GUBMINT use of such "drones" or other remote sensing "evidence"... that's left WIDE OPEN for the gov't to use.

Give it a few years... instead of little old lady's snooping around the perimeter of your property with binoculars, making adjustments on your property values for the tax appraisals, they'll hire a company that sends out a guy in a minivan with a drone, which then buzzes about the property or neighborhood, looking for new swimming pools or outdoor tool sheds and stuff that they can then raise your taxes over, or HOA's sending drones out scouring the neighborhood back yards looking for violations they can cite, etc... the possibilities are literally limitless... they'll be using this sort of stuff for EVERYTHING sooner or later...

Personally, I can see where this sort of thing could be a valuable tool for LE... BUT, I think that the same regulations should apply as to any other "search or seizure"... IE have a warrant (probable cause) and/or an exception for exigent circumstances... I could see the value in having an officer in a vehicle carrying a drone, equipped with cameras and trained to use it, who could respond to situations much like a canine officer would... have a dangerous felon who's running through a neighborhood and have officers scouring the area-- send in the drone to get realtime "birds eye view" and help locate him (where departments are too small and cannot afford a helicopter, this would be ideal). Have someone holed in a house shooting at officers, and they're unable to approach, a drone could get close enough to actually reconnoiter without necessarily getting into the line of fire or in range... I don't have a problem with the gubmint using such drones in such exigent circumstances...

BUT, having the appraisal district buzzing my property looking for more stuff to tax, or having the gubmint flying over to see if you're watering your lawn at the wrong time so they can ticket you, or to see if you have an old car in the backyard that they want removed, that's just WRONG...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Here's something to think about.

DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones/

Looks like the domestic-use Predators are capable of determining whether an individual is armed and can track/listen in on cellphones and two-way radio signals. The heat sensing, FLIR, laser targeting, etc. are a given.

Looks like 1984 has arrived a few years later than predicted. Hopefully the self-awareness of Skynet is still a few years off...Or the scientists are wrong about Apophis missing the Earth in 2029.
 
No mention of anything like that up here. I guess after we get all the anti-government rhetoric out of the way a good question is are there any ways to prevent the obvious and iilegal use of this technology folks?
cheers
fred
 
o1d_dude said:
Here's something to think about.

DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones/

Looks like the domestic-use Predators are capable of determining whether an individual is armed and can track/listen in on cellphones and two-way radio signals. The heat sensing, FLIR, laser targeting, etc. are a given.

Looks like 1984 has arrived a few years later than predicted. Hopefully the self-awareness of Skynet is still a few years off...Or the scientists are wrong about Apophis missing the Earth in 2029.
Click to expand...
Actually all the optics are contained in a stabilized ball camera similar to those in traffic helicopters. A Commercial Of The Shelf $350,000 Ball Aerospace Helicopter camera was used in the first General Atomics Predators. When the USAF decided to arm the Predators, GA needed a COTS targeting system and used a Raytheon ball/targeting camera system from the MH-60 helicopters for Hellfire missiles.

FLIR Systems has a number of milspecCOTS imaging systems available for aerial surveillance and reconnaissance applications. Check out the video here. They are not cheap, but they are gyro-stabilized platforms with optical detection/tacking ranges over 10 km.

The FLIR Quark LWIR camera core represents an inesxpensive OEM 1 cubic inch, 1 ounce solution for 24/7 video surveillance. With a 35 mm lens it can detect a vehicle at 2.5 km and a person at 1 km at night in total darkness. Cost is ~$7K and it's ITAR restricted to US use only.

QuarkLeft-35mm.png


The cell phone interceptor and RDF antenna is COTS equiptment and relatively inexpensive. Nothing HSA wants to do is very complicated. The biggest issue is air traffic control and collision avoidance, but there's sevveral COTS collision avoidance solutions comming to market so that's really is a solved problem.

In reality a Predator is overkill for domestic applications. In combat zones, you have to stay above 20 kft if you don't want to get shot at, but in domestic situations you can fly at a lower altitude and a smaller air vehicle would work and cost less. The GA GNAT, the predessor to the Predator, realy would be more suitable, and cost less.

Bob
 
I think armed drones are very wrong. Science fiction has become science prophecy.

HK-Drone_Retracted.JPG
 
Fred22 said:
No mention of anything like that up here. I guess after we get all the anti-government rhetoric out of the way a good question is are there any ways to prevent the obvious and iilegal use of this technology folks?
cheers
fred
Click to expand...

Always count on fred for labeling anything critical of gov't plans to infringe on our rights as an anti-gov't rant and respond with a flag waving session...

Great post fred!

Later! OL JR :)
 
luke strawwalker said:
That's not true...
Click to expand...

You're right. Many laws include a phrase like "with intent to defraud" or whatever.

There are existing laws against invading privacy. There's no need to update them every time some specific new technology becomes available.

-- Roger
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top