image
Page 3 of 37 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 367

Thread: TEXANS! Call your reps today! Tell them NO on bill HB 912!

  1. #21
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    108
    Modern tort already covers this, means are irrelevant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy...odern_tort_law

    Even if they wanted to they have no authority over government operations who are probably the only ones that have the equipment and time for real privacy intrusion.

  2. #22
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by RandallJ View Post
    Wow, you read my other post and agreed? ROFL...
    I dunno did I? I'm responding to that post that I quoted and pointing out the hypocrisy of writing new laws to stop over-regulation.
    Quote Originally Posted by sl4ppy View Post
    Not sure I agree there. The bill SOLELY calls out private entities and explicitly exempts governmental agencies from being affected by this bill. So actually, exactly the opposite.
    No, read it again. It bans all use of drones with the only exemption being for law enforcement when they already have a warrant and the suspect is fleeing. Pretty narrow window for use.

  3. #23
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Posts
    1,443
    In legislative terms, a "person" is a private entity; a corporation, individual, etc.; NOT a government entity. Therefore the ability for a GOVERNMENT entity to spy on private property or individuals is completely unfettered by this bill.

  4. #24
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by sl4ppy View Post
    In legislative terms, a "person" is a private entity; a corporation, individual, etc.; NOT a government entity. Therefore the ability for a GOVERNMENT entity to spy on private property or individuals is completely unfettered by this bill.
    Are you sure of that? If that's the case why does this bill specifically make exception for government agencies?

    Also, this bill seems like it only makes illegal the filming of private property/persons on private property and specifically has this for a defense:
    (c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the image was captured: ... (6) of public real property or a person on that property.
    Which means you can do it all you want on public property, that's way better than the Oregon bill. But IMO this bill won't make it very far.

  5. #25
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,703
    This is an increasingly typical reaction from legislators and bureaucrats who are lazy and stupid.

    If they have a problem associated with some kind of item the simplest (and easiest) response is to simply ban the item by making it illegal.

    How long before we have to rip our food apart with our teeth because someone shows a politician a video of some nutter stabbing someone in a street?

    "Oh hell, knives are dangerous, we must make it illegal for *anyone* to own a knife because they could use it to stab someone!" might be the response.

    This is getting to be real "Minority Report" stuff when the mere possession of an item implies you are going to commit a crime with it.

    Instead of making FPV or *any* RC flight (even throwing an 808 on a foamie) a crime, how about the bureaucrats realise that it's not the *use* of such equipment that ought to be banned but the *MISUSE* of it. Sure, make it a crime to use an FPV/UAV craft to take images that are later used for illegal purposes -- such as blackmail, breaching privacy etc -- but don't assume that *all* such flights are done with the intent of causing mischief. If you assume that all FPVers are trying to break the law then you have to also assume that everyone who has a knife in their kitchen is also going to try and stab someone with that knife.

    Then there's alcohol -- it's legal and its *use* poses no threat to anyone. However, its *MISUSE* causes injury and death to countless people every year by way of drink-driving smashes, violence and alcohol-induced organ damage. Do the politicians ban alcohol? Hell no (because most of them like a shot now and then) -- instead, they take the *SENSIBLE* attitude of passing laws to punish its misuse.

    That's how it ought to be with FPV and cameras on RC models. We ought to be free to do what we want (just as we're free to consume alcohol -- age limits etc not withstanding) but, if someone uses those images for an illegal purpose THEN they ought to be prosecuted.

    We have to understand and accept that politicians *WILL* pass laws to try and control FPV/UAV/onboard-video, there's little point trying to stop that. What we must do is *demand* parity with other "potential threats" such as alcohol, knives, cars etc. They should be free to own and use but if you misuse them -- THEN, and only then, you get your ass kicked.

    Instead of banning FPV/RC models with cameras -- why don't they just ban the cameras? That way, you couldn't tape an 808 or GoPro to a long wooden pole and get the same pictures through of your neighbour's upstairs bedroom window as they suggest you could with that FPV quadcopter. Or just ban long poles!

    We need to get the politicians to define what they're trying to control here. If they're worried about privacy -- then simply refer them to the existing privacy laws that already make it illegal to spy on your neighbours using *any* technology. Point out that there is no need to make a special case for RC models.

  6. #26
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,434
    Hope you guys can dodge this bill! But I'm afraid those legislations are gonna pop up in every state and country...

  7. #27
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin TX
    Posts
    109

    Texas Drone / Privacy Legislation - Needs your input!

    Here is the back story: A lobbyist contacted me and wanted me to fly around the Texas Capital for a news reporter to write a story about Drones for the Texas Tribune and New York Times. Here are the links:

    http://www.texastribune.org/2013/02/...vate-property/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us...d-privacy.html

    Basically, the aim of the bill is pro-privacy. However, the way it is written is obviously very very bad for anyone interested in FPV. I have spent some time talking with them about this and they told me their aim is not to obstruct hobbyists and that we should put together some language that could be added to the bill that would exclude hobbyists. He said the intent is not to rob us of our freedom, but we have to make sure we speak up and have language added that represents us. Whether I like it or not, I seem to be the one that will spearheading this and I need your help! We need to come up with some common language that excludes us and protects us from these types of bills.

    This debate is going to be cropping up all over the country, so if you think that because you are not in Texas this does not concern you, you are wrong.

    We need to rally together and present a unified group. It seems I have made a powerful friend who is willing to help us so we need to come up with some short, concise language we want inserted into this bill.

    Anyone who wants to speak directly with the Lobbyist, please just shoot me a note and I will give you his information so can speak directly with him about this.

    Sincerely,
    Justin Edwards

  8. #28
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    108
    I don't think you should work to accommodate hobbies, this is a bad bill and should be dropped.

  9. #29
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    3,048
    Why doesn't current privacy law work? The law should make invading privacy illegal, not anything that could be used to invade privacy illegal. Camera's, zoom lenses, recorders, and parabolic mics are all legal until you use them in certain ways ... taking pictures where a reasonable expectation of privacy could be expected. This doesn't need exclusions to the bill it needs to be scrapped.
    KF7SKL,TechPod/Walrus/250mmQuad/HoneyBadger, EZUHF,SL-AAT, 1G3/2G4/5G8

  10. #30
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin TX
    Posts
    109
    You can cry about it, complain about, do whatever you want about it but it does not change the fact that THIS BILL is going to be debated, modified, and voted on and if it happens to pass, you had better hope we have some positive language for the hobbyist. Regardless, I am going to try and make sure we are protected.

Page 3 of 37 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Close call.
    By Dallibab in forum AIR SHOWS...
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 16th October 2011, 06:44 PM
  2. Very Close Call
    By Garbach in forum AIR SHOWS...
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2nd June 2011, 12:24 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •