Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rented Tritium wrote:

A red light camera just saw your CAR, but not you. So now if someone else was driving, you have to contest it and TELL THEM who was driving. You have to prove you WEREN'T driving instead of the other way around.

Mate, you dont.

In the UK, speed camera's are pretty common. If your car gets busted from the back, you can get your mom to take your fine. It's easy, everyone does it. No lawyers, you just write on the form the name and address of the person taking the fine and it gets done. Millions of people do it.

If your photographed from the front and they can physically see you driving, then your stuck with the fine though.

You don't HAVE to prove gak.

Having lived in the US and the UK, I have to say that I really dont understand that small percentage of Americans that are just ridiculously paranoid about everything. It truly baffles me. We have some CCTV, but you dont even notice it, and if you happen to get mugged, occasionally there was a camera and the cops get some evidence from it. Thats it. They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife. They dont do anything "secret" they are just there, visibly, and nobody cares, and life is still good, and we can still drink and drive and not get caught, and buy booze, and sleep in garbage cans. Whatever floats your boat.

Why does this American "paranoia" thing about camera's even exist?

Frazzled wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Easy E wrote:So, let's turn the discussion to how non-military groups can utilize drones.

yes let's.
Let's but that burden on you.
Find the non military agency willing to buy a 30.35M aircraft to strap a 17.5M payload onto. Not including the cost of ground equipment, maintenance, and spare parts.
Let's go ahead and say non-federal too since you want to talk about looking for suspicious activity and actioning police officers which is the function of state and local law enforcement.
But since you can't be bothered with performing basic background information searches I won't hold my breath.

on the positive they already do to an extent. Not the big mondos like you're talking about, but radio controlled helicpoters and such (the cheap crap). They've been used on several movie sets for wide panoramic shots of outside events (Gettysberg was one of the first).

on the aquatic front, their use is incredibly common.

There is a world of difference between R/C and Drones. They certainly aren't unrelated, but the automation neccesary to make an R/C into a drone is staggering in weight, cost, and complexity. There ARE low cost drones, but with lower cost comes lowered capabilities. Completely ignoring FAA requirements which those inexpensive drones will not meet.
We're talking about "big mondos" because of this:

Easy E wrote:
By the way, why create a "Sensor System" for Drones like Gorgon Stare, and not put it in a drone once you have built it? I didn't think the company built it just for LOLz. I think they intend on selling it to people like the military, police, and other corporations.

So, how about the use of drone by other non-military/paramilitary groups. You know, like journalists and stuff?

Which is where cost and size become an issue. Not a Blade EP with a nose camera.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Well those are actually only SOME of the drones. There are some smaller cheaper ones with less flight time that will be used commercially. Further, in the next few years they really will get cheaper, I'm sure.

I think the very first regular use for them will be advertising. It would be relatively inexpensive to have small battery powered drones that are small enough and low enough to avoid FAA regulation that could use low power lasers to project things onto fog or clouds or what have you.

Another use is entertainment. I'm SURE disney parks are already looking into using them with animatronics to have flying characters or whatnot.

Also security. A large parking lot could have a drone watching for auto burglaries. Similar to those cherry picker cabs you see right now.

Then the paparazzi. There's good money in celeb pictures. Some of those photo agencies could afford a drone if it was just a tiiiny bit cheaper.


So basically, there are a ton of uses, but the BULK of them will be the small ones under the FAA's altitudes of jurisdiction.

Just because an aircraft operates in class G airspace doesnt mean it's unregulated. The airspace is unrestricted not the aircraft. To obtain an airworthiness certification even small commercial use UAVs will require AT LEAST level 2 autonomy and probably more. Redundant navigation systems, sense and avoid, and other requirements drive the cost and complexity up. The FAA is making real steps towards integrating the national airspace but widespread commercial use wont be cheap or widespread for quite sometime. There is no such thing as flying below FAA regulation, they govern ground level to Class A. THere is no such thing as too small or too low to avoid FAA regulation with the current structure, but proposals for size vs safety considerations have been proposed.

Easy E wrote:So does the Journalism/Paparazzi aspect. How do you see Drone technology being used by journalists impacting future privacy discussions? What limitations to Journalists currently have for photography people/events, and would special restrictions be put in place for aerial drones?

That question has been asked and answered to DEATH in the courts because paparazzi have been using helicopters for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
In the UK, speed camera's are pretty common. If your car gets busted from the back, you can get your mom to take your fine. It's easy, everyone does it. No lawyers, you just write on the form the name and address of the person taking the fine and it gets done. Millions of people do it.

You're not getting what I'm saying.

You have to either take the fine or tell them who does take the fine.

You MUST. Those are your two answers. If you decline to answer the question at all, it's automatically you.

See the issue? You refuse to incriminate yourself and they, without any evidence you were actually in the car, can fine you. You SHOULD be able to cross your arms and ask THEM to prove you were in the car.

We probably should define drone then. I'm using the concept of any remotely piloted UAV.

AustonT wrote:
Just because an aircraft operates in class G airspace doesnt mean it's unregulated. The airspace is unrestricted not the aircraft. To obtain an airworthiness certification even small commercial use UAVs will require AT LEAST level 2 autonomy and probably more. Redundant navigation systems, sense and avoid, and other requirements drive the cost and complexity up. The FAA is making real steps towards integrating the national airspace but widespread commercial use wont be cheap or widespread for quite sometime. There is no such thing as flying below FAA regulation, they govern ground level to Class A. THere is no such thing as too small or too low to avoid FAA regulation with the current structure, but proposals for size vs safety considerations have been proposed.

Wrong. I absolutely promise that drones will be small enough VERY SOON to fit into the R/C toy class and ignore 99% of this.

I can make a self piloting quadrotor RIGHT NOW out of a kit that can provide a LOT of functionality without any FAA rules outside of the usual don't fly near airports business.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
In the UK, speed camera's are pretty common. If your car gets busted from the back, you can get your mom to take your fine. It's easy, everyone does it. No lawyers, you just write on the form the name and address of the person taking the fine and it gets done. Millions of people do it.

You're not getting what I'm saying.

You have to either take the fine or tell them who does take the fine.

You MUST. Those are your two answers. If you decline to answer the question at all, it's automatically you.

See the issue? You refuse to incriminate yourself and they, without any evidence you were actually in the car, can fine you. You SHOULD be able to cross your arms and ask THEM to prove you were in the car.

I get your point mate, but I dont see the issue. It's video/CCTV footage, surely you only have two options anyway right? I mean, you can take the fine, or you can say that your mate was driving, what other options are there?! And how would it be different if it was a live copper pulling you over with a speed gun?

I mean, I suppose you could "cross your arms and ask them to prove you were in the car" but they are talking to you, and you are!

mattyrm wrote:They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife.

Or do we?

"appears to be fornication in the convertible"

EDIT: wont embed...you need to log into youtube.

mattyrm wrote:
I get your point mate, but I dont see the issue. It's video/CCTV footage, surely you only have two options anyway right? I mean, you can take the fine, or you can say that your mate was driving, what other options are there?! And how would it be different if it was a live copper pulling you over with a speed gun?

In America, when you get accused of something or are sued, the person doing the accusing has to actually show it was you. If all they have is a picture of your car, they should not be able to just ASSUME it must be you unless you can prove otherwise. They should have to prove that there WASN'T anyone in the car.

This is a pretty basic component of the American legal system.

When you are pulled over with a speed gun, the cop actually SEES YOU. When you are hit with a camera, they never get a picture of your face, just of your car. Cars don't commit violations, people do.

You have the right under the COnstitution to face your accuser. redlight camera corporations vitiate that right.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Wrong. I absolutely promise that drones will be small enough VERY SOON to fit into the R/C toy class and ignore 99% of this.

I can make a self piloting quadrotor RIGHT NOW out of a kit that can provide a LOT of functionality without any FAA rules outside of the usual don't fly near airports business.

I bow to your years of expertise in the field.
(sarcasm in case my sarcasm font isnt working)

They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife.

Apache...FLIR...Southern Pines...Ft Bragg...night flights...gun video...1/82nd Attack Bn...

I'm prety sure their are plenty of modle that all ready do, however the media may have been refering to them as "drones" when they aren't technically part of that category.

I still see the big difference between drones and helicopters being loiter capability and signature. If a helicopter is following you or hovering over your porperty it "can" be pretty obvious (depending on camera tech). Smaller drones are designed to reduce the detectability. That could equla the difference between Helicopter surveillance and Drone surveillance.

However, I maybe totally misunderstanding drone tech. Thats why I am here, to learn more about it.

Edit: Thanks for the Case name. Stupid(er) question. What does within the "Curtainage" mean?

Frazzled wrote:You have the right under the COnstitution to face your accuser. redlight camera corporations vitiate that right.

Well this actually isn't true since the "accuser" in this case is a person who reviewed the footage.

The issue is that they are not being required to meet a sufficient burden of proof.

Requiring the camera to catch your face would solve the whole problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Wrong. I absolutely promise that drones will be small enough VERY SOON to fit into the R/C toy class and ignore 99% of this.

I can make a self piloting quadrotor RIGHT NOW out of a kit that can provide a LOT of functionality without any FAA rules outside of the usual don't fly near airports business.

I bow to your years of expertise in the field.
(sarcasm in case my sarcasm font isnt working)

Tell me more about the fantasy world you live in where R/C planes are fully regulated by the FAA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:I'm prety sure their are plenty of modle that all ready do, however the media may have been refering to them as "drones" when they aren't technically part of that category.

I still see the big difference between drones and helicopters being loiter capability and signature. If a helicopter is following you or hovering over your porperty it "can" be pretty obvious (depending on camera tech). Smaller drones are designed to reduce the detectability. That could equla the difference between Helicopter surveillance and Drone surveillance.

However, I maybe totally misunderstanding drone tech. Thats why I am here, to learn more about it.

You don't have any inherent right to know you're being looked at. If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given place, then you can assume nobody is and if there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy, then the law acts like you are being watched all the time.

Jihadin wrote:

They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife.

Apache...FLIR...Southern Pines...Ft Bragg...night flights...gun video...1/82nd Attack Bn...

I'm on about static CCTV camera's that you sometimes see in British cities mate, the point im making is that its not part of a "conspiracy" its just.. you know... something they use to help catch criminals.

mattyrm wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife.

Apache...FLIR...Southern Pines...Ft Bragg...night flights...gun video...1/82nd Attack Bn...

I'm on about static CCTV camera's that you sometimes see in British cities mate, the point im making is that its not part of a "conspiracy" its just.. you know... something they use to help catch criminals.

It's not that video is bad, it's that authorities are sometimes allowed to use video that doesn't constitute actual proof. Just because it's video doesn't mean the regular rules for evidence don't apply.

When you get pulled over they ask for your license, see your face, know who you are, make you sign the ticket, right there at the scene. With a traffic cam, they ASSUME it was you and mail the ticket to you. They are NEVER required to prove it was you.

Jihadin wrote:

They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife.

Apache...FLIR...Southern Pines...Ft Bragg...night flights...gun video...1/82nd Attack Bn...

Pretty sure this is from a Kiowa at NTC, but I've been wrong before.
I've video tapped COUNTLESS hajjis banging goats, other men, and sometimes even women.

Rented Tritium wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I get your point mate, but I dont see the issue. It's video/CCTV footage, surely you only have two options anyway right? I mean, you can take the fine, or you can say that your mate was driving, what other options are there?! And how would it be different if it was a live copper pulling you over with a speed gun?

In America, when you get accused of something or are sued, the person doing the accusing has to actually show it was you. If all they have is a picture of your car, they should not be able to just ASSUME it must be you unless you can prove otherwise. They should have to prove that there WASN'T anyone in the car.

This is a pretty basic component of the American legal system.

When you are pulled over with a speed gun, the cop actually SEES YOU. When you are hit with a camera, they never get a picture of your face, just of your car. Cars don't commit violations, people do.

Yeah, and as I said what IS the difference? You said we only have two choices, there is no third option in the USA either!

If the camera gets the arse end of your car and your brother was driving it, then you tell them, and he gets the fine.

If it gets your front, then your banged to rights cos they saw your face.

How is it different? And what is the problem?! Those are the only two options regardless of it is a human cop with a camera, and just a camera, because you cant "fold your arms and say YOU weren't driving" cos the copper is talking to you. You cant say "It wasn't me officer!" from behind your steering wheel!

mattyrm wrote:
If the camera gets the arse end of your car and your brother was driving it, then you tell them, and he gets the fine.

What if you don't know who was driving? What if you can't remember? What if you want to exercise your rights to tell them nothing?

In all of those cases, they simply give you the ticket without EVER being required to prove anything.

As it's civil and not criminal, the level of proof is lower and the 5th amendment isn't in force, but seriously what if you honestly don't know who was driving?

Rented Tritium wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Wrong. I absolutely promise that drones will be small enough VERY SOON to fit into the R/C toy class and ignore 99% of this.

I can make a self piloting quadrotor RIGHT NOW out of a kit that can provide a LOT of functionality without any FAA rules outside of the usual don't fly near airports business.

I bow to your years of expertise in the field.
(sarcasm in case my sarcasm font isnt working)

Tell me more about the fantasy world you live in where R/C planes are fully regulated by the FAA.

AustonT wrote:There is a world of difference between R/C and Drones.

Tell me about the fantasy world where Radio Controlled and Drones are the same.

AustonT wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Wrong. I absolutely promise that drones will be small enough VERY SOON to fit into the R/C toy class and ignore 99% of this.

I can make a self piloting quadrotor RIGHT NOW out of a kit that can provide a LOT of functionality without any FAA rules outside of the usual don't fly near airports business.

I bow to your years of expertise in the field.
(sarcasm in case my sarcasm font isnt working)

Tell me more about the fantasy world you live in where R/C planes are fully regulated by the FAA.

AustonT wrote:There is a world of difference between R/C and Drones.

Tell me about the fantasy world where Radio Controlled and Drones are the same.

No dude. You're the self proclaimed expert here. Tell me why they're not. Tell me what definition of R/C is SO STRICT that you cannot possibly fit a drone into it.

You have been tossing around FAA lingo in here to establish authority. Responsibility comes with that. You are playing internet FAA toughguy in here and I am calling you on it. Explain the categories that you claim to know so well.

Rented Tritium wrote:

No dude. You're the self proclaimed expert here. Tell me why they're not. Tell me what definition of R/C is SO STRICT that you cannot possibly fit a drone into it.

You have been tossing around FAA lingo in here to establish authority. Responsibility comes with that. You are playing internet FAA toughguy in here and I am calling you on it. Explain the categories that you claim to know so well.

UAV Fact Sheet

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and serve diverse purposes. They may have a wingspan as large as a Boeing 737 or smaller than a radio-controlled model airplane. A pilot on the ground is always in charge of UAS operations.

Recreational use of the NAS is covered by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57 which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic.

To address the increasing civil market and the desire by civilian operators to fly UASs, the FAA is developing new policies, procedures, and approval processes. Developing and implementing new UAS standards and guidance is a long-term effort.

The FAA created the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO) and the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) UAS office to integrate UASs safely and efficiently into the NAS.
The FAA is working closely with stakeholders in the UAS community to define operational and certification requirements. It is critical to develop and validate appropriate operational procedures, regulatory standards and policies for routine UAS access to the NAS.
The FAA has asked RTCA– a group that frequently advises the agency on technical issues – to work with the industry and develop UAS standards. RTCA will answer two key questions:

1. How will UASs handle communication, command, and control?
2. How will UASs “sense and avoid” other aircraft?

The introduction of UASs into the NAS is challenging for the FAA and the aviation community. UAS proponents have a growing interest in expediting access to the NAS. There is an increase in the number and scope of UAS flights in an already busy NAS.

The design of many UASs makes them difficult to see and adequate “detect, sense and avoid” technology is years away. Decisions being made about UAS airworthiness and operational requirements must fully address safety implications of UASs flying in the same airspace as manned aircraft, and perhaps more importantly, aircraft with passengers.

Interim Approval Guidance:

Unmanned Aircraft: A device used or intended to be used for flight in the air that has no onboard pilot. This includes all classes of airplanes, helicopters, airships, and translational lift aircraft that have no onboard pilot. Unmanned aircraft are understood to include only those aircraft controllable in three axes and therefore, exclude traditional balloons

This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should seek guidance under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, which is currently under revision.

Civil UAS operations require a special airworthiness certificate and should follow the process as specified in this document.

AC 91-57 shall not be used as a basis of approval for UAS operations and is applicable to recreational and hobbyists use only.

I'm still waiting for you to give me the definitions for R/C and UAV.

You've given me some nice copypasted rules for UAVs, but you still haven't told me how the term is defined. That's pretty important for your entire case, austinT.

Also, 3/4 of what you posted isn't even relevant to this. Are you trying to just overload me with info so I don't notice you didn't bother answering the question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, how do you explain the fact that there are already a half dozen approved commercial UAV's in use with no issues?

Rented Tritium wrote:You've given me some nice copypasted rules for UAVs, but you still haven't told me how the term is defined. That's pretty important for your entire case, austinT.

The term is defined in the interim guidance under Unmanned Aircraft. It's pretty cut and dry. I can't read for you.

AustonT wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:You've given me some nice copypasted rules for UAVs, but you still haven't told me how the term is defined. That's pretty important for your entire case, austinT.

The term is defined in the interim guidance under Unmanned Aircraft. It's pretty cut and dry. I can't read for you.

Aha. Now I understand what you are arguing.

No, when I said flying below FAA regulation, I am referring to flying them in uncontrolled airspace. Yeah, sure, they have to submit some forms first big whoop.

There are literally commercial drones flying RIGHT NOW and you are in here all:

To obtain an airworthiness certification even small commercial use UAVs will require AT LEAST level 2 autonomy and probably more. Redundant navigation systems, sense and avoid, and other requirements drive the cost and complexity up.

widespread commercial use wont be cheap or widespread for quite sometime.

So you say they need "level 2 authonomy", then you quote the FAA saying you just need the special airworthiness certificate. As much as you claim to know, you should know that's not really a problem.

Now I am no expert on aviation, but my comprehension of what you copied and pasted, there is no difference between a "drone" or R/C plane....

Course what do I know, maybe you actually ride around inside your R/C planes.

Rented Tritium wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:You've given me some nice copypasted rules for UAVs, but you still haven't told me how the term is defined. That's pretty important for your entire case, austinT.

The term is defined in the interim guidance under Unmanned Aircraft. It's pretty cut and dry. I can't read for you.

Aha. Now I understand what you are arguing.

No, when I said flying below FAA regulation, I am referring to flying them in uncontrolled airspace. Yeah, sure, they have to submit some forms first big whoop.

There are literally commercial drones flying RIGHT NOW and you are in here all:

To obtain an airworthiness certification even small commercial use UAVs will require AT LEAST level 2 autonomy and probably more. Redundant navigation systems, sense and avoid, and other requirements drive the cost and complexity up.

widespread commercial use wont be cheap or widespread for quite sometime.

So you say they need "level 2 authonomy", then you quote the FAA saying you just need the special airworthiness certificate. As much as you claim to know, you should know that's not really a problem.

When was the last time you filed a COA?
or got an airworthiness certification?

AustonT wrote:
When was the last time you filed a COA?
or got an airworthiness certification?

I just got done reading the requirements. They seem pretty basic. Anyone making these things for sale will have zero problem getting through that on the cheap.

I mean, it can't be that hard, since people have literally already done it. You are aware that you are now arguing with actual reality since there are actual literal commercial UAVs that have actually literally been approved for this, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sparkywtf wrote:Now I am no expert on aviation, but my comprehension of what you copied and pasted, there is no difference between a "drone" or R/C plane....

Course what do I know, maybe you actually ride around inside your R/C planes.

They are.

R/C planes LITERALLY ARE uav's. If your UAV is being used for entertainment or sport and follows the general R/C guidelines, it is an R/C plane.

Rented Tritium wrote:

AustonT wrote:
When was the last time you filed a COA?
or got an airworthiness certification?

I just got done reading the requirements. They seem pretty basic. Anyone making these things for sale will have zero problem getting through that on the cheap.

I mean, it can't be that hard, since people have literally already done it. You are aware that you are now arguing with actual reality since there are actual literal commercial UAVs that have actually literally been approved for this, right?

Im glad we went valley girl, it will make this so much more enjoyable for me.
The requirements are so basic that LITERALLY anyone could get one right. I mean you could LITERALLY build your automated quadcopter today and LITERALLY have a airworthiness certificate or COA in hand LITERALLY tomorrow. I mean LITERALLY NASA hasn't even been turned down.

COAs are known amongst the UAS industry as moderately unattainable and even agencies like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have been denied, according to the FAA website

sparkywtf wrote:Now I am no expert on aviation, but my comprehension of what you copied and pasted, there is no difference between a "drone" or R/C plane....

Course what do I know, maybe you actually ride around inside your R/C planes.

The FARs havent even been updated to draw that line yet, as it stands if its for recreational use its R/C and if its for commericial or public use it's an Unmanned Aircraft; there are hopes that line in the sand will be more deep. As it stands if you fly above 400ft you're either breaking R/C guidance or flying a UA.

AustonT wrote:
The requirements are so basic that LITERALLY anyone could get one right. I mean you could LITERALLY build your automated quadcopter today and LITERALLY have a airworthiness certificate or COA in hand LITERALLY tomorrow. I mean LITERALLY NASA hasn't even been turned down.

You can do whatever flailing you want. Real companies have applied for and were approved for all of that. Commercial UAVs are currently approved and in use, so your original point is debunked. Moving on.

And if anything, it's likely to get EASIER when they change those guidelines, so I am really not sure why you are still arguing that it can't be done.

Rented Tritium wrote:

AustonT wrote:
The requirements are so basic that LITERALLY anyone could get one right. I mean you could LITERALLY build your automated quadcopter today and LITERALLY have a airworthiness certificate or COA in hand LITERALLY tomorrow. I mean LITERALLY NASA hasn't even been turned down.

You can do whatever flailing you want. Real companies have applied for and were approved for all of that. Commercial UAVs are currently approved and in use, so your original point is debunked. Moving on.

And if anything, it's likely to get EASIER when they change those guidelines, so I am really not sure why you are still arguing that it can't be done.

like I said I bow to your years of experience in the field. Meanwhile the last COA I filed is being used as the example on the FAA website.