What is your opinion about drones?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Call me Rip Van Winkle, but I just learned about drones.  Sure I had heard of them before, but I didn't really understand what they could do and how often they are used.  (So much to learn, so little time . . . )  I don't have an opinion on them either way.  I mean I feel really torn; there are really good arguments both for and against their usage.  I'm grateful that I don't have to make that decision.  But I'm just curious what you guys think.  My curiosity is two fold: I'm interested in what people think and I'm also curious if the majority will favor one side or the other, or whether opinions will vary.  

If anyone happens to be as uneducated on drones as I was here's a video.  It's about an hour long.  There's no need to watch it if you don't want to.   

 

[Guest]

They're just a tool like anything else.  It's not the tool we judge.  It's what you do with them.

[zil]

If the drone brings me free things from Amazon, I'm all in favor of it.  If it hovers over my house taking infrared video of me slouching on the couch, I'm violently opposed to it. (I may need to buy a shotgun - do Amazon sell those?)  Otherwise, @Carborendum's answer seems like a good one to me.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

LOL, sorry I wasn't more clear, my mistake.  The thing I am torn about is the use of drones in military warfare specifically.  But you bring up a good point about spying, Zil.   

[Guest]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

LOL, sorry I wasn't more clear, my mistake.  The thing I am torn about is the use of drones in military warfare specifically.  But you bring up a good point about spying, Zil.   

I can't watch the video right now.  So, if we're only talking about warfare, what is the argument against them?

Edited November 22, 2016 by Guest

[Jane_Doe]

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Call me Rip Van Winkle, but I just learned about drones.  Sure I had heard of them before, but I didn't really understand what they could do and how often they are used.  (So much to learn, so little time . . . )  I don't have an opinion on them either way.  I mean I feel really torn; there are really good arguments both for and against their usage.  I'm grateful that I don't have to make that decision.  But I'm just curious what you guys think.  My curiosity is two fold: I'm interested in what people think and I'm also curious if the majority will favor one side or the other, or whether opinions will vary.  

If anyone happens to be as uneducated on drones as I was here's a video.  It's about an hour long.  There's no need to watch it if you don't want to.   

 

I use drones at work, to understand the growth patterns and water usage of the forest.   Drones are just a tool, and like all tools are neither inherently good or evil.  Good or evil is dictated by how the person is using them.  

[NeuroTypical]

Should people be able to use drones to:
* Gather intel about nuclear power plants, government facilities, prisons, stuff like that?  
* Gather intel about the people who work at these facilities, find out where they live, etc?
* Fly onto private property and take streaming video of whatever they can see looking through windows?

As a private landowner, should I be able to knock down a drone with a baseball bat and throw it in the trash, and have anyone who shows up to complain arrested for trespassing?  What if it's Domino's drone, coming to deliver my pizza?

We need to figure out these answers as a society, and then have just a skosh of legislation on the subject, so we'll know what is a good first amendment exercise, and what's something that should land you in jail.  Or what's a legitimate and protected business use, and what's a private propertyowner's right.

As things stand now (Mirk, correct me if I'm wrong here), there really isn't much in the way of laws.  So cops get called, and sometimes end up unsure about who to arrest and who to defend.  People get to suing each other, and courts don't have much in the way of laws to apply.

Edited November 22, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

For you, NT.

http://hospitalitytechnology.edgl.com/news/Flirtey,-Domino-s-Pizza-Begin-Pizza-Delivery-by-Drone-to-Customer-Homes107850

Edited November 22, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

For you, NT.

http://hospitalitytechnology.edgl.com/news/Flirtey,-Domino-s-Pizza-Begin-Pizza-Delivery-by-Drone-to-Customer-Homes107850

But I'll bet my neighbor's pizza can't get there in the promised time unless that drone flies over my property, at which point, I want to shoot it like skeet.  And if they want to shoot down my Amazon delivery, well, I can't blame them.  Further, I think it's interfering with my WiFi.

Meanwhile, we're really not answering LP's question...

[anatess2]

The issue is not necessarily drones but 3D Property Rights.  As in... how far up the air of your property line remains yours...

As far as military use... there's no difference between sending a drone or sending a soldier as it pertains to the morality of warfare.  A drone infiltrating another's space is a soldier doing the same.  But, sending a drone saves having to send a soldier that risks his life for the mission.

Edited November 22, 2016 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

It's important to use the correct app when ordering pizza, otherwise you may have your house flattened by a military drone. 

But yeah, to actually address LP's question - the US is good at killing people, and drones make it easier, as well as safer for innocent people in the vicinity.  

I forget how all this washed out when it was big news - did we stop using drones to assassinate US citizens who had gone to another country to fight for Al-Qaeda?  Or did the media just stop covering it because Obama was president?  I guess if it starts being a story again in 2017 I'll have my answer. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The issue is not necessarily drones but 3D Property Rights.  As in... how far up the air of your property line remains yours...

That is already determined by City ordinances for low level and FAA for higher levels.

Many cities set it at about 30 ft to 50 ft without a permit stating otherwise.  This often goes into the definition of what is a high rise or not.

FAA has different heights depending on whether you're in densely populated areas or less populated areas.

It would be quite possible to fly in the zone above the private property, but still below FAA minimum elevations.  Such an issue would require some discussion and legislation to determine the required flight zone for drones.  This would differ if you're on public ROW vs private property.

[NightSG]

26 minutes ago, zil said:

But I'll bet my neighbor's pizza can't get there in the promised time unless that drone flies over my property, at which point, I want to shoot it like skeet.

Go big or go home; get a full SAM launcher system and take out those trespassing commercial airliners when they fly over your private property.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

They're just a tool like anything else.  It's not the tool we judge.  It's what you do with them.

Exactly.  

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

That is already determined by City ordinances for low level and FAA for higher levels.

Many cities set it at about 30 ft to 50 ft without a permit stating otherwise.  This often goes into the definition of what is a high rise or not.

FAA has different heights depending on whether you're in densely populated areas or less populated areas.

It would be quite possible to fly in the zone above the private property, but still below FAA minimum elevations.  Such an issue would require some discussion and legislation to determine the required flight zone for drones.  This would differ if you're on public ROW vs private property.

Yes, but these laws were crafted before the invention of drones.  Hence, it's an issue now.  So, I remain... the issue is not necessarily drones but property rights in the age of drones.

Edited November 22, 2016 by anatess2

[estradling75]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Should people be able to use drones to:
* Gather intel about nuclear power plants, government facilities, prisons, stuff like that?  
* Gather intel about the people who work at these facilities, find out where they live, etc?
* Fly onto private property and take streaming video of whatever they can see looking through windows?

As a private landowner, should I be able to knock down a drone with a baseball bat and throw it in the trash, and have anyone who shows up to complain arrested for trespassing?  What if it's Domino's drone, coming to deliver my pizza?

We need to figure out these answers as a society, and then have just a skosh of legislation on the subject, so we'll know what is a good first amendment exercise, and what's something that should land you in jail.  Or what's a legitimate and protected business use, and what's a private propertyowner's right.

As things stand now (Mirk, correct me if I'm wrong here), there really isn't much in the way of laws.  So cops get called, and sometimes end up unsure about who to arrest and who to defend.  People get to suing each other, and courts don't have much in the way of laws to apply.

While all true...  @LiterateParakeet seems more concerned about military applications.

I agree it is another tool for the military and as such has pretty standard issues of military versus civilian use.

[mordorbund]

One of the challenges of drones as a military weapon comes with the remote nature of it. Although their lives are not at stake as in more traditional warfare, they are still engaged in destroying human life and that takes a very real psychological toll. But, because they are not deployed, they return home to family life without having the travel time to decompress.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, but these laws were crafted before the invention of drones.  Hence, it's an issue now.  So, I remain... the issue is not necessarily drones but property rights in the age of drones.

It would seem that you completely ignored the final lines of that last post which you seem to have repeated here.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It would seem that you completely ignored the final lines of that last post which you seem to have repeated here.

Which you completely ignored from my original post.

This is soooo sandbox... "I said it first!"  "No, I said it first!"... okay, whatever... I didn't say it first.  You did.  I feel so stupid now.

[NeedleinA]

On 11/22/2016 at 3:04 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

But I'm just curious what you guys think.

We own a drone* . We use it to do surveillance on a strange cult and their dwelling place.

*quadcopter drone

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Which you completely ignored from my original post.

This is soooo sandbox... "I said it first!"  "No, I said it first!"... okay, whatever... I didn't say it first.  You did.  I feel so stupid now.

Nope.  Did not ignore it.  Here's the sequence of events.  I honestly hope this will clarify things.

1) NT said a discussion was in order.
2) You stated that the issue was not about drones bur 3D property rights...
3) I agreed with both.  My intent was not to refute either, but tie them together.
4) To do so, I posted the fact that concepts like that are already defined for many things.  So, it wouldn't be that hard to have have that discussion and have some legislation on it.
5) You told me I was wrong and said this is new territory so we need to have discussion on that.

???

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Nope.  Did not ignore it.  Here's the sequence of events.  I honestly hope this will clarify things.

1) NT said a discussion was in order.
2) You stated that the issue was not about drones bur 3D property rights...
3) I agreed with both.  My intent was not to refute either, but tie them together.
4) To do so, I posted the fact that concepts like that are already defined for many things.  So, it wouldn't be that hard to have have that discussion and have some legislation on it.
5) You told me I was wrong and said this is new territory so we need to have discussion on that.

???

Quote the sentence where I said you were wrong.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Quote the sentence where I said you were wrong.

OK.

19 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, but these laws were crafted before the invention of drones.  Hence, it's an issue now.  So, I remain... the issue is not necessarily drones but property rights in the age of drones.

FIRST: "Yes, but" connotes a disagreement.  It's a fact that "Yes, but" is simply "But".  

SECOND: If you did agree with what I said, why did you feel the need to repeat yourself?  You obviously thought I was right.  So, why the repetition?

[anatess2]

58 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

OK.

FIRST: "Yes, but" connotes a disagreement.  It's a fact that "Yes, but" is simply "But".  

SECOND: If you did agree with what I said, why did you feel the need to repeat yourself?  You obviously thought I was right.  So, why the repetition?

Okay, let's play some more in the sandbox...

My statement:  " The issue is not necessarily drones but 3D Property Rights "

Your statement:  " That is already determined by City ordinances for low level and FAA for higher levels."

My statement"  " Yes, but these laws were crafted before the invention of drones.... So, I remain... the issue is not necessarily drones but property rights in the age of drones. "

 

 

[NeedleinA]

29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, let's play some more in the sandbox...

Usually not a happy ending to those who play in a sandbox too long-
Sincerely,
Mr. Hellfire