this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
288 points (99.0% liked)

News

25312 readers
5266 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 50 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is having a large party supposed to be illegal? Either way doesn't sending drones to someone's backyard constitute unwarranted search?

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (5 children)

What's visible from public spaces, including the air, is not considered a search of your persons, houses, papers, and effects. Or at least not an unreasonable search.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So if I got a drone and live streamed some cops backyard pool party that'd be ok?

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 years ago

Depends, are you a cop?

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It would probably be legal.

[–] Tagger@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Possibly not advisable, they tend to be quite ... shootie

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

So they can use thermal imaging from outside the house to watch the people inside? That's bs

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 years ago

How do you think they catch grow-houses? They thermal scan neighborhoods for heat signatures from the grow lights. Cops are masters of subverting the law to do whatever they want.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

I know thermal imaging has been used to look for marijuana farms, back when grow lamps were incandescent and houses would stand out as hot. But I don't know if they had warrants for those or not.

But to actually use imaging, whether it's thermal, radio, or X-ray, to see through a wall, is definitely considered a search.

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Thermal cameras can't see through glass, but they could be used to see if a building is significantly warmer than the surrounding structures.

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'ma need to see a source for this claim.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_surveillance_doctrine

That's a good place to start. It summarizes a few supreme court cases that you can read more about.

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Absolutely wild overreach. Thanks for the link.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Your property rights do not stop at the ground. No one has the right to fly a drone over your property. There's just usually not much you can do about it.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

This is not correct. Navigable airspace is controlled by the FAA alone. Part 107 rules state that in fact you must fly a small unmanned aircraft less than 400 feet above ground level or within 400 feet of a structure. So, if someone is flying a drone around, they must fly it fairly close to the ground (though a little quadcopter at 400 feet would be pretty hard to notice).

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No one is flying the drones 400+ feet off the ground for surveillance.... The cameras would have to be far too good/expensive for that to be practical.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Sorry, I forgot which way I was using the negative when writing that sentence. I've fixed it. You have to stay under 400 ft, or within 400 ft of a structure.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You may be thinking “the airspace above the surface that could reasonably be used in connection with the land” seems noticeably vague. At what point does my airspace end and the public highway begin? Unfortunately, there is no exact answer to this question, but generally, the government considers the public highway to start around 500 feet in uncongested areas, and 1000 feet otherwise. Flight over private land cannot interfere with the enjoyment and use of the land.

https://www.landsearch.com/blog/property-air-rights

Hope their drones go higher than 500 feet.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Keep reading. The very next bit from that page:

What about the airspace below 500 feet? Can helicopters, drones, or hang gliders legally fly above my property? In 1946 in the case of the United States v. Causby, a large military aircraft flew 83 feet above a farmer’s land startling his chickens, causing them to kill themselves by flying into walls. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the farmer. So we are at least entitled to 83 feet. What about the space between 83 and 500 feet?

Well… this appears to be rather unclear and is still undecided.

Like I said, navigable airspace is controlled by the FAA, but what is "navigable airspace" is not quantified. And the rules say small unmanned aircraft cannot exceed 400 feet.

[–] DagonPie@kbin.social 47 points 2 years ago

If this is real, get those pop up tents or a tarp and make a cover. Fuck the police.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 41 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nice of them to offer target practice.

[–] DesertCreosote@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I know you're being facetious, but for anyone thinking seriously about this, shooting down aircraft, which drones are categorized as, is a Federal offense. Same with shining a laser at it, trying to jam its communications, or spoofing GPS to throw off its navigation.

And if the cops are the ones operating the drone, they'll probably be highly incentivized to arrest and prosecute you.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They gotta prove who did it though.

[–] DesertCreosote@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If a police aircraft gets shot down, they're just going to arrest everyone they can find nearby and work it out from there.

That's what they do when a police helicopter gets hit with a laser pointer, I would assume it would be the same in this case.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

There is still like 30k people in a neighborhood. Too much effort to processes.

[–] dmonzel@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I thought Cyberpunk 2077 was supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The quote from Mike Pondsmith, the creator of Cyberpunk -- the TTRPG 2077 is based on -- is "'Cyberpunk' is a warning, not an aspiration".

https://stevivor.com/news/mike-pondsmith-says-cyberpunk-warning-not-aspiration/

[–] Zengen@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Shoot the drones down. Air compressors and PVC piping can create effective and legal anti air flak guns.

[–] Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago

Yes, the police famously don’t care if you shoot down their camera and gps equipped drones.

The not-a-firearm might not be illegal to have but destroying police property is still going to ruffle feathers.

[–] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Cheap paintball gun would probably easily gum up the works on a drones propellers with a couple shots. At least throw off the balance enough for it to go down, or at worst cover up the camera lens.

[–] loulis@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

News on Monday: NYPD to prosecute those who shot down drones Wich were in their backyards.

[–] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago

How many people can NYC muster to all drop trow and moon a drone? Is it indecent exposure if the only way to see it is a fuckin spy drone? BUTTS OUT!

[–] librechad@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago

This would be against the 4th amendment. We don't need law enforcement peeking into our yards.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] RunningSpaces@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

I need to make a meme about how Watch_Dogs was a warning not a manual.

[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

The government has already been doing this on a larger scale with higher altitudes. It's funny nobody seems to care as long as they can't see the drones but once they're low enough to be visible watch everyone lose their minds.