Fun
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2013
- Messages
- 344
That South Park episode had nothing to do with privacy/drones. It was just a long PSA for women on the dangers of not shaving your bush.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Firefighters Shoot Hoses At Drone
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
That South Park episode had nothing to do with privacy/drones. It was just a long PSA for women on the dangers of not shaving your bush.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
I'm glad you've gotten your legal training through southpark. It leads to a hell more credibility than the others who have stated that it's not illegal.
How about this take, and there was a similar one last week: He could be there to report on it? He posted it on YouTube for the world to see. I bet many of you are big proponents of the 2nd Amendment, so how about the 1st? This is a government entity interfering with a free press. He in no way interfered with the fire fighters and kept a safe distance. In fact there were others on the street with what looked like professional cameras that the press would use, what if the fire fighters had turned their hoses on them?
Keith
Keith
Or if instead of firefighters, it was police officers, and they shot a RC aircraft hovering safely in the distance while they beat some perp up for making them run?
And what right to privacy do firefighters on the job not on their own property have anyway? They don't even have an expectation of privacy, and that 'drone' was clearly far enough away that it couldn't have possibly posed a safety hazard to them or prevented them from doing their job. What it can show, and what a lot of professionals at heart are really worried about, are mistakes. They know that like everyone, they make mistakes, or do things they technically aren't supposed to do but can get away with, and don't like video evidence of that being used against them.
From the Youtube description:
"went to a fire call with my drone and the fire company tried to blow my drown out of the sky with the fire hoses .For any licensing requests please contact [email protected]"
What do you think a licensing request entails?
You know what break.com is, right? You create a non-commercial video of say your friend falling off his bicycle and face planting, and break may contact you to purchase the video from you and host it on their site.
But lets argue it was commercial... clearly the firefighter knew this, and thanks to Judge Dred laws that give him ultimate power, he exercised his power to destroy private property based on this revelation, right?
You know what also illegal? Going 31mph in the 30mph street next to my house. I should stand out there with rapid deploy spike strips and disable any vehicles I have decided are breaking the law. Or do I have to put a firefighter hat on first?
Lets assume that in a situation where firefighters are still using hoses to spray water on what was obviously a catastrophic fire, there was still some danger. In fact, because fires can flare up and linger, let's assume pretty safely that there was still danger since they were still throwing water.
It's not where he was standing, its where the drone was flying. Let me ask you something, what if that drone had picked up video of someones burning body of a loved one? What if the drone caught a thermal from the heat, went wild and crashed as the operator struggled to regain control? That drone was easily in the high percentages of crashing into a person. Drones are full of LiPo batteries, which explode when they get too hot...they cause fires. Drone drops into fire...now they gotta deal with that. What if it starts another fire, a metric ton of what-if's and 'rules' are usually put in place to counter all those what-if's.
I fly these things, youtube is ripe with guys watching their $3000 camera-birds come crashing down because they made a momentary screw-up or the software didn't behave the way they expected it to.
What if the drone had fallen into the house? Congratulations, you've just contaminated a potential crime (arson) scene, you've already complicated an investigation, etc, etc. Again, basic common sense rules. He should have flown the quad high, but not within the perimeter.
These features work, sometimes perfectly, on a nice calm day. These aren't self-aware Science Fiction robots that can sense objects around them, they are remote controlled toys. The higher you go up in price, the better the quality of the components, brush-less motors, battery backups, some even have parachutes. They can fly a pre-programmed route, but that requires planning carefully, avoiding trees, and its dependent on the map software being up to date. "Hey that building wasn't on the map", etc.
Youtube, if you feel like it, Quad Fly-aways or Crashes, you'll see even a gust of wind shear can send one of these spiraling.....this is why you do not fly them over or even close around people. If I was working as a fire fighter, and saw some dumbassed putting his toy anywhere near where I was trying to do my job, I'd be pissed.
Agreed.
Right? Perhaps not. But who has time for a warning shot or a "Hey guys, let's stop and discuss this situation with the person controlling it, perhaps we can come to some kind of agreement" situation......this is one of those "your reckless act got your hand slapped, be smarter next time" situations to me.
They aren't, they're upgraded toys. A $5000+ quad built using a custom carbon fiber frame and custom flight board, etc, is still just a remote controlled vehicle, an expensive toy. You can disrupt their communications (some fly back to a waypoint, some just drop like rocks from the sky), they can throw a prop, catch a thermal that drives them up or down (remember a quad at hover is basically weightless, even a SLIGHT gust of wind will send it on its way, and even IF the quad is set to auto-hover or auto-maintain its position, it can only do that as hard as it can push its motors).
My .2 cents. Guys like this will be the reason I'll need a $500 federal license to fly mine in my own back yard this time next year. 2 or 3 more 'tards fly it around the white house or into a plane at an airport and the hobby is history. Getting a quad will be like getting a pistol.
No, its attitudes like yours, that people have the right to destroy private property on a whim, are why that might be the case. More rational minds would create laws that specifically protect the right to fly private RC aircraft in this fashion, and police forces educated so that they can punish such vigilantes to the full extent of the law.
This is no different than not having a specific speed limit in a neighborhood, someone driving 30mph when a resident thinks 20mph is right, and the resident then taking a baseball bat to the car.
We need laws/rules, and we needed them ten years ago, as the lack of clarification is not only causing a lot of vigilantes to think that they can attack private property with reckless abandon and no consequences, but holding back commercial aviation... its damn possible that we'd have little quadcopters delivering packages to my backyard by now.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
There's a lot of what ifs in your rant. What is clear is that the firefighters were never in any sort of danger and he wasn't close enough to be a threat. The fact that the water from the hose barely reached it and even afterwards they couldn't get close to it even though they tried again to hit it with the water.
I'd happen to lean more towards the firefighter's thoughts on the previous page. They were sloppy and lazy and didn't want anyone to see what they were up to. They don't have a right to privacy in the public doing their job on someone else's property and house.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
In no way? So everyone looking up to go "what the hell is that" isn't interfering? Interference doesn't need to be something physical.
cvinh
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,101
So basically the same way a bird would interfere with firefighters by flying over?
Youn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,973
If it were a very strange sounding and looking bird, yea that might become a disturbance to which they'd try to rid of it like this.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
If a bird was making a huge fucking racket above them, yes absolutely. Most birds however don't make a constant high pitched whirring noise.
And you know what, if there was a super annoying bird, they might squirt a hose at it too as a sign of "get the fuck out of here" and in no way are trying to destroy the bird.
cvinh
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,101
What kind of point are you making? The drone has a risk of crashing and hurting someone or contaminating a scene, so the correct response is to shoot it out of the air so it crashes and risks exactly what you don't want it to do?
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
Right... so the next time a fire truck rolls on by causing a disturbance, it's totally cool if i try and spray it down with a fire hose to shoo it away, right?
Or do i need to put on a fire hat first?
If it's not part of the fireman's job to get rid of a noise, then why do it? If it is illegal because they're intentionally trying to destroy someone else's property, how can you be so non-nonchalant about it?
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
I can throw my D5200 with its 700mm lens and extended lithium rechargeable battery at a cops head while he's arresting someone but instead I stand away at a safe distant and snap my pics. Paparazzi and journalist have been doing it for years, they just found a better method to do their job.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
It's perfectly legal for the Westborough Baptist to protest funerals and what not, but if someone ran them fuckers over with a truck I would probably be cheering that level of illegal behavior simply because they are fucking douchebags, when some celebrity punches a paparazzi who's "legally doing what they're allowed to do" I cheer because the paparazzi are being douchebags. Face it, the whole "let me get a drone and fly over everything and photograph it" is the next generation of douchebaggery. That my good man am why I am so non-non<sic>chalant about it.
It's not a rant, it's a discussion with someone who's opinion I don't necessarily align with. This, being the internet, is kind of what we do here. I disagree that the firefighters were never in any sort of danger and he wasn't close enough to be a threat.
Just for laughs...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4EE7Vv_RdM
It's "fine, fine, fine no prob OHSHIT". That's how these things go, only assholes who have no respect for anyone but their own needs fly these things over other people.
Gravity is your problem here.
No, but they do have an expectation of safety doing their jobs, which I think we can all agree is probably *dangerous enough* without Joe Whoever and his quad flying over their heads trying to get that Money Shot......
Firefighter here, wanted to chime in.
Staffing is one reason because someone has to fly the thing. And being the Incident commander there are so many details in a scene, many that you can take in from the ground, that you can't spare the time to pilot something; so you would need an assistant, which many smaller / volunteer departments, don't have.
The idea has merit though. It would have to be a stable, very responsive drone, one that can come to a stop and hover at a point very easily. (And not fall / injure someone if it does get hit with a hose, would could happen if someone inside shoots out (hydraulic ventilation).
The thermal imaging component would add at least 5 grand to the unit, just a thought. I'll brainstorm with the guys next time I work and see, I'm sure there is some tech guy at some department that has tried this.
Another application just off the top of my head, especially in big cities, is a super mega phone that could alert residents, instead of cops going door to door, to alert people to evacuate. Just hover at each wonder and yell GTFO.
Staffing is one reason because someone has to fly the thing. And being the Incident commander there are so many details in a scene, many that you can take in from the ground, that you can't spare the time to pilot something; so you would need an assistant, which many smaller / volunteer departments, don't have.
The idea has merit though. It would have to be a stable, very responsive drone, one that can come to a stop and hover at a point very easily. (And not fall / injure someone if it does get hit with a hose, would could happen if someone inside shoots out (hydraulic ventilation).
The thermal imaging component would add at least 5 grand to the unit, just a thought. I'll brainstorm with the guys next time I work and see, I'm sure there is some tech guy at some department that has tried this.
Another application just off the top of my head, especially in big cities, is a super mega phone that could alert residents, instead of cops going door to door, to alert people to evacuate. Just hover at each wonder and yell GTFO.
http://www.amazon.com/Seek-Thermal-...9?ie=UTF8&qid=1434075819&sr=8-9&keywords=flir
$300 shipped, and if it works for hunters to identify animal heat, surely that's enough resolution to be helpful in seeing hot spots. Its extremely small and lightweight, so can be mounted on a cheap drone, and has a listed 1000 foot range, which should be far enough to keep the drone from harm.
https://youtu.be/muQcKAb4EPI?t=2m22s
They make an android one, but I'd say grabbing a used iPhone 5S from someone upgrading off ebay or craigslist would do the trick, as the regular camera would be high quality.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I don't watch broadcast TV, are any of the traditional news outfits using drones yet for covering things? Seems like a logical step from $$$$ helicopters. I can't count how many scifi references to floating cameras for media coverage I've seen.
I think broadcast TV would lobby against drones, because only big broadcast TV can afford the helicopters, providing them local monopolies on coverage.
Any schmuck can scratch together enough coin for a drone though, and so you open yourself up to massive competition that can get their content on the web much faster than your large organization and not have the power to spin the narrative to the big $$$ master's wishes, which is where the real power of the press in America comes into play.
So the internet and drones are something that I can see as their #1 biggest threat and something they would not adopt and fight tooth and nail to have banned.
Wow, we are definitely overpaying. Although I think one of the main cost components is having a TIC that can still function in extreme conditions like fire and impact.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I don't think a property owner's property rights extend infinitely above his home.
D
Deleted member 108676
Guest
I might be wrong, but I swear I read about a case where the courts decided that a person owns up to so many feet above his property. I cannot for the life of me find it, but I swear I read it once. It wasn't very high...80 feet or something, but damn I can't remember where I read it.
The big national nightly news broadcasts are using at least one drone shot a night, often live, swooping around a reporter as they talk about what's going on around them. I can't speak for other areas, but the local stations in the Seattle area share helicopter time because it's too expensive, and they are not using drone footage unless it's a story about drones.
I would guess that as far as broadcast news companies are concerned, competent drone camera operators that don't crash into expensive stuff are personnel that would have to exist in addition to their normal camera crews - and the smaller local stations don't have the budget for that.
I assume that height varies from city to city and state to state.
Yeah, I guess there's some vertical distant that the property owner owns. For example, if someone had hover board, I don't think he'd legally be allowed to hover 1 foot above the property owner's lawn.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,107
And I don't think a camera equipped quad copter owner's rights extend over my home at all.
Luckily, what you think is pretty much irrelevant, as all that matters is what the law is, and the law states that class G airspace is unregulated, doubly so for an aircraft under 55lbs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)#Class_G
No aircraft, manned or unmanned, requires your permission to fly over your property.
It depends on the height it was flying. There are a couple of restrictions for the drone operator and homeowner.
The big SCOTUS case about how low "public navigable airspace" extends was decided about 70 years ago (US vs Causby). It's still the basis of state laws for public airspace below 500 feet. The drone looks to be flying below 80 feet from the ground over the property, which would violate airspace laws in every state since he didn't request permission or an get an easement.
But even that doesn't matter. The drone operator wasn't following FAA restrictions on drone operations and he likely wasn't even properly licensed to begin with to fly a drone over people or else he would have known he shouldn't have done that.
Mind if I hover my quad-rotor drone outside your bedroom window tonight? Oh wait, I don't need to ask your permission to do that, so I'll just do it. Sleep well!
You can try, but that would be illegal, as I'd simply call the cops on your for disturbing the peace and if its after 10PM for noise violation.
Now if you're flying high enough that I can't reasonably even hear your drone, then yes I'd have no leg to stand on, but it really wouldn't bother me either. After all, I have cameras pointing out of my house too, and google maps has cars that drive by with cameras and satellite imagery of my house already. I imagine at 20 mins a pop, you'd grow pretty bored constantly recharging and hovering your quad and seeing nothing and recharging and hovering and seeing nothing for hours on end.
I see, disturbing the peace is illegal and interfering with firefighter operations is not?
You need to learn to read, this has already been covered.
The drone operator was standing next to a police officer. He was in my opinion, and apparently the opinion of the police officer, far enough away to not be interfering with anyone and was just an observer. The firefighter didn't like being observed, and took the law into his own hands to willfully destroy someone's private property. There is no gray area there, the firefighter in no possible way is legally justified in his actions.
Now lets say that the drone operator was instead flying by your house buzzing around you. Well now that's falling into harassment. Are you now allowed to take your shotgun and shoot the drone? Nope, no more than I can complain that you revving your motorcycle engine in your driveway is annoying me and so I take my fifty caliber and shoot a hole through the engine block. I shouldn't have to explain something so simple to you.
You file a complaint with the police, and the police can respond to it, or not respond if your description sounds perfectly legal in which case they can tell you to go sit on a banana and not bother them again. In the case of hovering right outside my window in the middle of the night, surely the police would agree that is all kinds of illegal be it harassment, disturbing the peace, violating noise ordinances since it would be noisy that close to the window, etc.
Which part of this in particular is confusing to you?
Ducman69 gave a good reply, but I just wanted to ask you how (in that video) was the drone operator interfering w/ the firefighter operations? It's not like he was buzzing in front of a FF's face like a gnat.
It's distracting them from their work, starting from 10:20 on you see them turning towards it and pointing. Some people here are blaming the firefighters for letting themselves be distracted. I blame the distractor for distracting them.
Later this year, the FAA has a deadline to announce new policy for drones; current policy is from AC 91-57, released in 1981 regarding RC planes, which doesn't apply very well at all to what people are doing with camera drones now, which is why the question of how close and low toy drones are allowed to operate near various things and people is the subject of such debate.
Huh? We're blaming the firefighter for destroying private property. And considering how far away it was, if that is distracting, then I don't know how he can even be remotely aware of his surroundings. That would be like me saying I can't work because a coworker is clicking on his keyboard 20 feet away.
So its very unlikely the firefighter (singular) was distracted, he's likely just one of several that believes that drones should be shot on sight and that won't tolerate having a camera pointed at them.
Its not that his opinion is invalid, but we have rules in society, and if most people don't share his opinion then he just needs to deal with it, or fight the fight that says the public is not allowed to be within XYZ yards of a fire-scene including any remote devices they control, and if most people agree then that can be law. Until then, he can't take the law into his own hands because he doesn't like being watched.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,107
My introduction to the R/C aircraft hobby in the late 70's included a number of rules that we considered common courtesy in addition to ones that were actual law.
You did not fly over private property without express permission, you stayed under the 400ft ceiling, you took the class and received your FCC license if you were operating on regulated frequencies, (that one is pretty meaningless now), you maintained line of sight, (which kept most people within 1/4 mile and under 200 ft on it's own), to name some of them.
You spent a grand on your quad, and think you should be entitled to use it how you like. I get that, but I spent a lot more than that on my home and would prefer people kept their multi-rotors, helicopters, planes, and other R/C flying machines away from it. You want to fly? There is your own property, there are public parks and land, there are R/C airfields. I would say there are national parks, but those are off limits to R/C right now. In most cases I don't think those should be off limits, but that is a whole different conversation
Because of people that can not respect the property of others, I expect some fairly draconian rules to come down the pipe. Thanks in advance guys.
You did not fly over private property without express permission, you stayed under the 400ft ceiling, you took the class and received your FCC license if you were operating on regulated frequencies, (that one is pretty meaningless now), you maintained line of sight, (which kept most people within 1/4 mile and under 200 ft on it's own), to name some of them.
You spent a grand on your quad, and think you should be entitled to use it how you like. I get that, but I spent a lot more than that on my home and would prefer people kept their multi-rotors, helicopters, planes, and other R/C flying machines away from it. You want to fly? There is your own property, there are public parks and land, there are R/C airfields. I would say there are national parks, but those are off limits to R/C right now. In most cases I don't think those should be off limits, but that is a whole different conversation
Because of people that can not respect the property of others, I expect some fairly draconian rules to come down the pipe. Thanks in advance guys.