SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words dept.
An organization representing news photographers urged California Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday to veto legislation that would restrict the use of drones over private property without the owner's consent.
The legislation would make flying a drone less than 350 feet above private property without consent a trespass violation. Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), author of the bill, has said the measure would prevent camera-equipped drones from peeping into windows or other invasions of privacy.
Additional coverage has been seen in Forbes magazine of the original bill and the significantly different amended bill. Most of the differences include the removal of the provisions that would require the person whose property is being overflown to actually prove that there was some intent to invade their privacy.
The second blog post (on the amended bill) goes into some detail as to Amazon's proposal for a high speed transit zone in the 200ft-400ft range. The Federal Aviation Administration requires any structure that goes above 200 feet to be marked with lights, etc, as an obstruction to aviation.
Is it possible that the removal of the provisions that would require proof of intent will allow for baseless lawsuits, and be the precursor to the outright outlawing of drones in California?
Another thought in this, is this law being driven by the celebrities in their quest to prevent the paparazzi from invading their private lives?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2015, @06:58AM
Actually, I can keep anyone off of my property. Anyone, and everyone. I have even told police officers that they are no longer welcome, and that they must leave, or face trespassing charges. Seriously - two badasses with guns and badges thought that they could intimidate me, and I told them to get their asses off of my property. They were looking for someone, and for whatever reason, they thought that I was hiding that person on my property. "Go get a warrant if you want to search. Otherwise, you're trespassing, and I'll sue both of you PERSONALLY. Now, get off my property!"
My property is my own, and I need not tolerate the presence of anyone or anything that I object to.
You'll have to cite some real laws to change my opinion on that.
Also note that if either of those cops had WITNESSED the presence of the wanted person on my property, then the situation would have been quite different. Since the wanted person wasn't on my property, then obviously, they didn't witness any such thing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @07:20AM
Quite the storyteller, are you. First you make a grandiose claim that you can eject anyone you please from your property at any time, then you admit that in reality you cannot do that. Then you claim you can press charges against police officers, but later you admit that the worst you can do is file suit against them. You are so full of shit, man. Shit. Full of it. You are.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday September 06 2015, @08:31AM
Some people are much more tolerant of cognitive dissonance than others. Some people are even totally aware that they have any! Take for example the average "pro-life" person who is in favor of capital punishment, war, and concealed carry. Not the slightest clue do they have. So go easy on Runaway. Just because no one can come on his property, unless they can, we should leave him with the unreflective peace such a combination of ideas gives him.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2015, @12:51PM
The cognitive dissonance is your own. Murdering prenatal and/or postnatal babies is the most heinous of acts, committed against the most innocent and most helpless of all people.
A very high percentage of capital punishment candidates are beasts in man form, guilty of heinous acts, such as murdering innocent babies. Concealed carry happens every day, all around you, and you don't even have a clue about who is armed, and who is not. Only if you should attack one of those carriers, does it make any difference to you. Respect other people's privacy zones, respect other people's property rights, and you'll never have to worry about concealed carry.
Like many other people, I'll step up to defend an innocent and/or defenseless person. Damned if I'll exert myself to save the life of a savage animal in man form.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday September 07 2015, @06:18AM
Runaway, oh my dear Runaway! Yes, of course! I cannot believe how much you have missed the point! You are not supposed to try to refute the analogy, you are supposed to argue that it does not apply! Now some of us think that abortion is a very good thing, since it kills those damn savages you want to kill before they are even born and have an opportunity to be the evil savages they will be. Kind of a win-win situation, but since we cannot be sure which ones those are. . . . OK, I have to be honest with you: any one who is pro-life will be pro-life of murders, even the worst of them. Now, careful, try to follow me here: anyone who is pro-sovereign citizen property rights had to insist that even if the cops witnessed a criminal entering their property, they would have an absolute right to exclude those officers, and the officers of any other nation, principality, or power that be, due to your absolute power of ownership.
So, bullshit, right? Use your property to grant sanctuary to felons, and your property is no longer yours. Or, don't pay your taxes, your property is no longer yours. If you unfortunately pass away, well, property is no longer yours. In fact, it never was yours, it was just that everyone else thought it was not really worth the effort to take if from you. But they could, legally. And you actually own nothing. Not even yourself, or your good name, or your user account on SoylentNews. Wow, time for a Buddha moment. "There is no spoon, and there ultimately is no Runaway, attachment is the source of suffering, and Real Estate is the worst." I am sure the Hello Dolly Lama said that some where.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 07 2015, @06:43AM
"attachment is the source of suffering, and Real Estate is the worst."
I've been down that trail of thought, often enough.
Maybe it would help you to understand, if you knew that the woman and the property were a package deal. Hell, I didn't even KNOW about the property - I kidnapped the hot young thing, took her home with me, got her pregnant, then married her. A job fell through after all of that, and I got to thinking about how I was going to take care of the woman and the baby, when she suggested, "Why don't we move back home?" And, I'm like, "Huh, WTF?"
So, basically, anyone fucking around on the property is also fucking around with the wife and children. It's not the land, to me. I can't possibly own any more than about two square feet of real estate. The ground my boots cover is mine. The rest belongs to the woman. And, you don't want to fuck around with the woman.
And, that is pretty much the way things should be. The Iroquois nation recognized that a man owns his clothes, his weapons, and damened near nothing else. The longhouses, the fields, the crops, everything else belonged to the women. It's my job to make sure the ridgepole of the longhouse doesn't fall down, but the longhouse belongs to the woman.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday September 07 2015, @07:04AM
Well as the original objector to your post said, Runaway, you tell a hell of a story.