And then what? Unless you can identify the hunters, you've got nothing. How can you tell from the air that it's illegal?
Who knows? If they are hunting in an area where they shouldn't that is easy to prove with arial surveillance. If they kill animals they shouldn't, that is easy to prove. And you can identify people and their vehicles from the air. We do it all the time.
I'm not saying it is the best way to go about it. But it isn't completely implausible.
The state using "drones" to monitor gun-owners? What politician could raise that idea without getting lynched?I'd rather have the Fish and Wildlife types doing the surveillance themselves. They could potentially swoop in and do something about it right away, not months to years later.
well, we are all animals. Animals are controlling the drones.
hell, just look at your Saint Palin, she likes to shoot animals from whirlybirds.
What an upside down world we live in today....The debate over gun control rages on....People are being drawn into supporting taking peoples private property to distribute to the collective...Rights, once proclaimed by our constitution granted us by God, are now determined, and given/taken by man....
And PETA wants to stalk, and harass legal hunters with drones....These people are just plain nuts. I'd shoot it down.
The state using "drones" to monitor gun-owners? What politician could raise that idea without getting lynched?
Who knows? If they are hunting in an area where they shouldn't that is easy to prove with arial surveillance. If they kill animals they shouldn't, that is easy to prove. And you can identify people and their vehicles from the air. We do it all the time.
I'm not saying it is the best way to go about it. But it isn't completely implausible.
Legal issues
Under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress directed the FAA to develop guidelines for safely accelerating the integration of drones into the national airspace system by September 2015. Calo said the act was intended to streamline the process by which public and private entities can get licenses to fly drones.
Since 2007, the agency has issued 1,428 certificates of authorization allowing for drone use to police departments, universities and other public bodies. According to the FAA, 327 of those permits were still active as of Feb. 15.
Private companies, such as drone manufacturers, can fly drones for testing, demonstration and training after getting an experimental airworthiness certificate from the FAA.
Hobbyists and recreational users of model aircraft currently don't need any special licensing but are encouraged to follow guidelines that are outlined in a 1981 circular. The guidelines say model aircraft should be operated at a site that is a "sufficient distance from populated areas" and not flown above 400 feet.
Right now, there are no provisions for commercial, for-hire unmanned aircraft operations, but Calo said that's expected to change.
Many states aren't waiting for the federal government to address concerns about privacy. Lawmakers in more than 25 states have proposed legislation related to drone use.
Some cities, fearful of abuse, have banned or considered banning their use by law enforcement. Police in Seattle recently scrapped plans to use two high-tech drones following protests from residents.
Data collection
In Michigan, McMillin is working on legislation that would prohibit government use of drones except under limited circumstances.
It is based on model legislation created by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says that law enforcement should only use the devices with a warrant or in emergency situations when a person's safety is imminently threatened. The bill also sets parameters on how data is collected, used and retained.
The technology behind drones is evolving quickly, McMillin said.
"I think there's probably going to be legal issues tomorrow that we don't know about today. ... It's uncharted territory, for sure," he said.
A Jan. 30 Congressional Research Service report prepared for members of Congress outlined some of the legal questions.
"Several legal interests are implicated by drone flight over or near private property. Might such a flight constitute a trespass? A nuisance? If conducted by the government, a constitutional taking?" the report asked.
Courts have generally upheld the principle that people do not enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, even on portions of their own property visible from a public vantage. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
An ACLU report about drones says the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed some warrantless aerial surveillance from manned aircraft but has not taken a position on whether the Fourth Amendment limits government use of drone surveillance.
"I think the nexus is this concept of what is public, and what is private?" said Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for the ACLU of Michigan. "Just because you're out in public, does it mean that nothing you're doing is private? Is the conversation with the person you're walking with private? Those are the things that will be (eventually) tested by the courts."
Both Weisberg and Calo said that when it comes to drones, current privacy law is inadequate.
"If the idea (is) that these things are going to follow folks around or patrol a particular neighborhood, there isn't much in American privacy law that stands in the way. That's both on the Constitutional law side and the civil law side," Calo said.
Privacy isn't the only concern.
This week an Italian airline pilot reported spotting a small, black drone hovering just a few hundred feet from his passenger plane as it made a final approach for a landing at New York's JFK Airport.
The pilot reported the drone was flying at about 1,800 feet some 3 miles from the airport, according to various published reports.
Although the plane landed safely, the incident drew the attention of the FAA and counterterrorism officials in New York and at the FBI.
As drone use grows, so do privacy, safety concerns
And then what? Unless you can identify the hunters, you've got nothing. How can you tell from the air that it's illegal?
Exactly what came to mind when I read the title... Target practice anyone?By animals maybe, by idiots with drones,not so much !:mrgreen:
If they are on no-hunting land. In theory, they could call the law who could come to the scene and possibly find evidence and while they are still there.
I suspect, however, that PETA more wishes to use them to harass and try to document facilties the butch and process livestock. Mostly, though, like almost everyone, they like toys too.
Try masturbating in public like an animal and see what happens.
lol, what's the matter? Hunters dont like to be hunted?:mrgreen:
edit:
That's a silly notion. If that's the case, then every country would have the same rights.
ohhh, that's right, there's more than 1 god.
silly me.
Ive got a 30-06 Springfield and I KNOW I could take out a low flying drone with it.
I can drive nails with that rifle at a hundred yards.
If PETA Wants to "hunt" hunters then they need to realize its going to cost them money.
What an upside down world we live in today....The debate over gun control rages on....People are being drawn into supporting taking peoples private property to distribute to the collective...Rights, once proclaimed by our constitution granted us by God, are now determined, and given/taken by man....
And PETA wants to stalk, and harass legal hunters with drones....These people are just plain nuts. I'd shoot it down.
I don't get it. Why doesn't PETA just put boots on the ground?
Do you think a business will open up that will mount the head of PETA drones on a plaque, so it can be displayed in ones trophy room?
Dang, that would be one for the hunters bucket list for sure...
I don't get it. Why doesn't PETA just put boots on the ground?
Trespassing for one.
Ive got a 30-06 Springfield and I KNOW I could take out a low flying drone with it.
I can drive nails with that rifle at a hundred yards.
If PETA Wants to "hunt" hunters then they need to realize its going to cost them money.
You must do a lot of illegal hunting, otherwise why would you care if they were watching you?
I see nothing wrong with using new technology to enforce conservation laws.
Oh and ignoring laws you don't like is not "proclaimed by our constitution OR granted us by God".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?