Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The technology has changed. Piloting an RC helicopter used to take a considerable training investment - and getting one large enough to hold a 1990s video camera used to be a considerable economic outlay as well. Newer models are comparatively dirt cheap and ridiculously easy to fly, practically making the technology available for many more people - some of whom will be pervs. Or burglars, scoping a property. Or the local HOA, checking that you haven't installed a clothesline.
Who said anything about "a 1990s video camera"?? I said that people have been doing this for many years - and they have
Relax. Perhaps we have different perspective on what constitutes "many".
Quote:
Where did you get the idea that A) I was talking about '90s tech,
Many years don't span back into the 90s, OK.
Quote:
and B) that not needing "a considerable training investment" is a new thing?
FWIW, everybody I've talked to about RC helicopters have hammed it up as having a steep learning curve with expensive mistakes along the way, but they might have been BSing me, what do I know?
Are you saying that affordable over-the-counter RC helis with cameras and flight assistance software is not a relatively new thing? Because I take it that we can at least agree that the number of units in the air makes a difference, and technology has lowered the threshold for now participants to join in the fun.
These things happen. I climb rocks. Back in the day, we were considered harmless eccentrics and property owners had an astonishing degree of tolerance, mostly because there weren't that many climbers to deal with. As the sport grew more popular and more approachable, numbers grew, people started taking notice and they of course noticed the most annoying climbers the most. And so rules and regulations and restrictions were put down for when and where you could climb.
You still have not said what you want done. It looks like there are already laws, although I don't think they will apply to your hot tub situation. If someone zooms into your bedroom, you can sue them. Or, you could just close the window when you take your clothes off.
I have stated my position quite clearly - sorry if you missed it somehow.
As for the windows - I don't want high tech photographs of the inside of my house whether I have my clothes off or on. I don't think that's unreasonable.
I have stated my position quite clearly - sorry if you missed it somehow.
As for the windows - I don't want high tech photographs of the inside of my house whether I have my clothes off or on. I don't think that's unreasonable.
I guess I must have missed it, because all I am hearing is how you like to run around naked in yor back yard and in your house with your windows open, and then you complain if someone sees you. You said you do not want to ban cameras, and we have already told you that there are laws in place which apply when people peek into houses. Do those laws apply if you insist on leaving your bedroom windows wide open? I don't know, but I doubt it.
I didn't have to. You "plainly" stated that you "hoped" for new laws to be passed. This was AFTER you pointed out that there are already laws against "peeping tom" type of activities - you even posted the text of one.
So if you acknowledge that there are already laws that make the infringing activity illegal, but you still want MORE laws enacted, what else could you be calling for?
What I PLAINLY stated is that laws regarding photography of private residences and properties vary from state to state. I also plainly stated that we should be proactive rather than reactive about privacy laws, and should revisit the laws already in place as technology continues to advance.
Quote:
And I (and others) have already told you that the technology to do this has been available and affordable FOR YEARS. This is not new! But you're suddenly up in arms about it? Sorry, but that smacks of not having been aware of its existence. If there's some other explanation, I'm all ears, but for the last couple of pages, you've been digging yourself a pretty deep hole on this. I doubt you can make the climb out.
Oh my - my credibility on C-D is at risk - according to you, anyway. Excuse me for a moment while I wipe the sweat from my brow.
Ok, I'm back. Here's the deal - which I really shouldn't even take the time to point out, but what the heck: I believe that this is the first thread I've spent any time on, on C-D, in which we've discussed the privacy issues of advancing technology and the usage of drones by private individuals. So THAT is why I am "suddenly" discussing it here. This is not the first time the thought has crossed my mind, or the first time I've acknowledged the topic, or discussed it with others. It's the topic of THIS thread, right now, so HEY! I'm discussing it!
If you suddenly jump on a thread discussing, oh, I don't know - homeschooling or something like that, should I assume that you've suddenly realized, "HEY! PEOPLE DO THIS NEW THING CALLED HOMESCHOOLING! OH MY GOSH - THIS IS NEWS TO ME! Let's discuss it!"
Quote:
Right - so why do you want more laws? To make the illegal activity more illegal or something? Of course not. You want people to not have the ability to break those laws in the first place. You want a ban.
I want a ban of what? I mean, you tell me, because apparently you know something I don't know about my own desires and opinions.
Quote:
You're either talking about a ban, or you're talking about existing laws, which you've already mentioned. No, not just mentioned, but posted the text of. Since those laws already exist, and you're clearly already aware of them, the only way you could "support legislation" would be if it were to ban the technology outright. After all, the laws that ban its use in the way you're concerned about already exist, and you already know about them, right?
My, my. I guess you missed my REPEATED opinion that, as technology advances, we need to be sure that we have laws in place to protect us under new scenarios and situations - better before than after the fact.
It's uncommon - very uncommon - for private civilians or local municipalities to own drones that are equipped with the technology that allows detailed views into private properties. Right now. But the scenario may become more common - in fact, already is becoming more common. Ten years ago, it was uncommon for everyone to have a video camera with them 24/7 but it's the norm now. We need to think thru and address the ramifications of advancing technology BEFORE our rights are endangered.
Quote:
I don't know what you think I'm advocating, but I'm with you on that aspect of this topic. As I said "plainly" before, I don't want people to get up in arms about a hobby that lots of people have been enjoying for many years simply because they never knew it existed, despite the fact that abuse of the technology is virtually non-existent. You don't ban something because of what someone might do with it. If that were the case, you wouldn't have access to an automobile, because you might drive it while intoxicated. You wouldn't have access to telecommunications equipment, because you might use it to plot a crime. See where I'm going here? Punish criminals after a crime has been committed. Don't punish law abiding citizens for something they neither have done nor have any intention of doing. It's un-American.
Sigh. I'm not talking about banning anything or punishing anyone for a crime they haven't committed.
But we shouldn't develop laws that protect people AFTER they're endangered. Using that logic, we'd never buy flood insurance, or wear our seatbelts.
I guess I must have missed it, because all I am hearing is how you like to run around naked in yor back yard and in your house with your windows open, and then you complain if someone sees you. You said you do not want to ban cameras, and we have already told you that there are laws in place which apply when people peek into houses. Do those laws apply if you insist on leaving your bedroom windows wide open? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Yes, you've missed it. Several times. I guess the mental image of me standing naked in my bedroom while I try to decide what to wear has you quite addled.
Don't worry - you won't be able to see that sight, unless you prop a ladder up to look over my fence, break into my backyard...or buy a drone and take advantage of available technology.
Then be sure to close your blinds at night when you turn the interior lights on. While you're worried about someone getting a peek at you while you're frolicking in your hot tub, all the neighbors know if you let the dirty pots and pans stack up.
You're totally missing the point. I hope it's intentional, because otherwise, it's just sad.
I don't want the government or my neighbor spying on my house or yard. People should be encouraged to shoot down drones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
