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) 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.