I was followed by a drone today are they legal?

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>Seems like no-one is addressing the possibility that the park service is operating drones</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Meant to address that. Right now, civil authorities (like the park service) have to go through enormous FAA bureaucracy to be able to fly UAS on behalf of the government. Lots of police, fire/rescue, and similar agencies would <em>love</em> to be able to get air support like this without spending $1000+ per hour to put a normal helicopter (carrying people) in the air.<br /><br />But in most cases, they've got no FAA-approved path to do so. Hobby pilots have been explicitly granted a waiver from such limitations (provided they keep it under 400', away from airports, don't endanger people, and so on), and there doesn't appear to be an actual law, per se, stopping commercial operators from flying them just like the hobbyists - just guidance from the FAA that they'd rather that didn't happen until they evolve their regulatory framework. But civil authorities (like parks departments) have their hands quite tied right now, unless they do what the military does to run a highly regimented program with endless certifications, etc.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Wow! didn't expect so many different views on this subject. This was very interesting to discuss. There are definitely those for it and those against it. Right now my stance is they need to be regulated. I think David W. based on where I was "deep in a secluded park" I did not feel comfortable having something following and videoing me when I had no idea of "WHO" or "WHERE" the photographer was. <br /> I think being able to see who is taking the pictures is important. If I see a mom taking pictures of her child at a park I go that's acceptable. If I see some guy sitting in a car taking pictures of kids in a park with a telephoto lens, I am most likely calling the police. Or more likely I am tapping on the car window and asking what are you doing? Is one of those your kids? What is your name?<br /> How do you do this when its a flying camera operated by who know who? If you look at the link of where I was in this park I think you would get a better understanding of how I at 6'1" 200+ pounds felt uncomfortable with something following me and not knowing who. I absolutely did not feel this was some kids toy or inexperienced adult. It gave me a VERY CREEPY FEEL. Too expensive, too far away from parking lot and was flying in a very discreet way. I really think most people would have never noticed it was there at all. It did feel as though we were being stalked, but in this case you don't even hear the footsteps behind you. If I were by myself I would probably have did a Travon Martin and ran the hell out of there.</p>

<p>Again here is the location<br>

http://patrickwheaton.com/quarrylake</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>I am curious, MP (genuinely so) what would have made you think that an image of people on the ground, including you occupying perhaps 30 pixels of that image, would have made you want to run away? How is that different than someone sitting on one of the rocky ridges in your photographs, using binoculars - other than that you'd never know about the person studying you, with a lot more detail, using binoculars?<br /><br />And again, a reminder: you could be flying one of these yourself within an hour of opening the box. The fact that it's in the air and floating around doesn't say anything about the level of experience of the person flying it. That could easily have been that persons first time out in a wide open space to fly it and practice shooting those long-range landscapes. It's perfectly understandable to want to try flying in a way that follows a path or movement way down there on the ground - it's almost the first thing that you find yourself doing when you try shooting from one of these. I suppose you wouldn't really understand until you see what the pilot sees through his very low-res ground display. There's nothing detailed to be seen until you're down on the ground and pulling files off of the camera.<br /><br />If you've got even a passing interest in better understanding this area of technology, I highly recommend swinging by a local RC club's flying ground, and just watching for a few minutes. Someone with a mutli-rotor just like that one WILL show up and will be delighted to show you what it's all about, and just how limited the things are in terms of camera payload, range, and flight time. Take a few minutes to play with one, and you'll form some very different opinions.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

I think it's important to set guidelines now. Maybe it's some moron with an iPhone app now, but there are all kinds of

companies and agencies who want to buy these. Is it OK for the park service to follow people around with drones? Is it

OK for the police to follow around "certain kinds of people" whatever that is with drones? Is it ok for some over-

possessive boyfriend to follow a girl around with drones? What are the rules?

 

 

To me, following someone with a drone is the same as stalking them. By my way of thinking there had better be a good

reason other than youthful exuberance. And when agencies ARE flying these things regularly, maybe bigger ones too, it

would be nice to set the redlines before those agencies and companies take advantage of the fact that they aren't there

yet.

 

 

On the other side, some wacko US State (can't remember which one) passed some law to allow residents to shoot at

drones! I can just imagine what I'd think of that if I were a small aircraft pilot or even a helicopter pilot given the difficulty of

assessing scale for aircraft.

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>These are very good questions Matt and I can completely see where you are coming from. The only response I have is the context of where the flight was. It was not in an open field or parking lot or other place where one would find it interesting to fly something like this. If I had one of these, I would want to show it off to my friends and fly where everyone could see me and the device for amusement and entertainment.<br /> <br /> I find it quite creepy to follow people into secluded places. It's like watching people as they enter a blind alley. My question is why would someone want to watch people in such a secluded vulnerable location. Think from the viewpoint of a bad guy. No they can't see details, but they can see where you are and how far away police or any additional help may be from you. They can from the air see better than you how vulnerable you may be.<br /> <br /> Different from Binoculars they may not be far away from you but in actually could be only feet away. I would be pretty suspicious of someone sneaking around corners following me with binoculars. Especially if they were canvasing the area to verify no one else was around. This takes looking out for cops to another level for a bad guy looking to avoid detection.<br /> I don't know maybe it is just me Matt. I can only tell you how it made me feel in that location and time of day. Just seemed out of place.</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>MP: I suspect that the photographer flying the quad found that environment to be visually interesting for exactly the same reason that <em>you</em> found it to be visually interesting. I'm not discounting how you felt at the time, I'm just looking to provide some additional perspective.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My question is why would someone want to watch people in such a secluded vulnerable location.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I deliberately go out and fly in unusual and sometimes secluded places. Once you past the part of flying for the sake of learning to fly, you start thinking about it in terms of the images you can create, and the scenes/settings that lend themselves to the look you're after.<br /><br />The other day, I climbed 40 feet down an embankment into a run-off creek/gorge below a national park footbridge so that I could get a solid visual on the quad-copter while I flew it - like a camera crane with a 75' reach - in a vertical pattern that caught the footbridge in between me and the sunset. Somebody approaching that scene would have noticed the drone, but probably would <em>not</em> have noticed me unless they really made a point of trying to figure it out. Of course, I was careful not to get near the footbridge from the air until there was nobody on it.<br /><br />If I had been working towards a creative goal with that effort, and needed some humans on the bridge, it would have been something I worked out with subjects who knew the drill and were prepared to make the most of the shot ... hey! quit waving at the drone - you're spoiling the mood! :-)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it OK for the park service to follow people around with drones?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it OK for a park ranger to check on people from horseback, or using a telescope from a fire tower? How about wireless networked trail cameras on trees, which are also used?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is it OK for the police to follow around "certain kinds of people" whatever that is with drones?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it OK for them to do that from a car or on foot?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is it ok for some over- possessive boyfriend to follow a girl around with drones? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is OK for him to do it in his company truck or on a scooter? Can he watch her with a 300/2.8 or a spotting scope from the top of a parking garage?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To me, following someone with a drone is the same as stalking them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you're probably over-estimating just how much "following" one can do under these circumstances. Regardless, stalking is stalking. The point is that there are already laws to address stalking, and such laws aren't going to physically prevent someone from flying a camera-toting hobby copter in the air anyway. But a stalker can already be prosecuted for behavior in person, on the phone, online, and even via third-party. You don't need a new law to keep stalking illegal, regardless of which new tool the stalker uses (off the shelf night vision goggles? hijacked web cam? planting a bug/camera on someone's car? you get the idea).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other side, some wacko US State (can't remember which one) passed some law to allow residents to shoot at drones!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This did not happen. Some city or county councilman <em>proposed</em> that, mostly as a joke, to make a point about private property. His proposal was never even voted on. There is no such law. But he his taking money online in exchange for a jokey "drone hunting permit" that he mails back to buyers. His local law enforcement and the FAA both assured him that anyone taking a shot at an aircraft - manned or unmanned - was in felony territory.<br>

</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Since we're on the topic:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2013/11/18/philippines-drone-camera-penhaul.cnn.html"><strong>Here's a fresh bit from a CNN reporter on site in the Philippines</strong></a>, using a small quad drone to help show the typhoon devastation there. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>In June this year an independent journalist used a small drone mounted video camera to record the Taksim Square/Gezi Park demonstrations in Istanbul, Turkey. When the police realized they were under surveillance they shot down the drone. There's some interesting <a href="http://gizmodo.com/watch-police-shoot-down-a-drone-flying-over-istanbul-513228306"><strong>video footage here</strong></a>.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Wow! That was absolutely fabulous link to drone video in Istanbul and Philippines disaster. I'm in technology and this is my first time seeing one of these or the videos they create. The quad in the Istanbul video is the exact same one I saw following me Sunday. Obviously, these are more common than I thought.<br /> <br /> I'm really surprised the police department is not using these to patrol high crime areas where drugs, robberies and prostitution are prevalent. Security guards could use these to make rounds without ever leaving their seats. I would love to own one of these, but only if I profit from its use. Too bad they can't be used for commercial use, so many possibilities.<br /> <br /> If this is what can be done with a $1200 quad, imagine what a more sophisticated model could do. I can't believe I was so unaware of the existence of this for civilian use and at such a low price point. When it comes to expensive hobbies, my Bushnell Elite 6-24x50 FFP rifle scope alone cost more than this and has severely limited use.</p>

 

[carbon_dragon]

Matt, you're just making my points for me, because I think we agree that drones should be held to the same standard as

their NON-drone equivalents. Yes, it's OK for a park ranger to check on people in the park with a telescope, but if he

constantly observes the same person for any kind of extended period it would be as bad as following them around

constantly with a drone camera.

 

 

Drones are a new technology, but we should remember they're going to creep people out in the same way as they would

be creeped out by some guy they don't know following them with a camera (or even without one). That is stalking no

matter what technology you use. If the drone in question hadn't seemed to follow the person who started the thread and

whirred away when he pointed his camera at it, I suspect he wouldn't have thought much about it. It was that "stalker" like

activity that made him wonder.

 

 

I see helicopters fly by all the time but never give them a thought. If they're hovering above me and then seem to follow

me when I drive away, then they get me nervous (as they would anybody). We have a lot of interesting toys and we have

to be careful how we use them.

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm really surprised the police department is not using these to patrol high crime areas where drugs, robberies and prostitution are prevalent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They're not allowed to yet, without going through some major contortions. Some federal agencies have gone through those steps, which is why we see those multi-rotors' much bigger fixed-wing cousins doing, for example, border patrol work. But there's a lot of hand wringing still to be done over things like privacy, chain-of-evidence, probably cause and the rest before domestic law enforcement starts putting them to work. But imaging how much risk could be reduced if, say, a SWAT team could figure out who's lurking up on a roof in a hostage situation before risking human lives to find out, or waiting for a standard manned helicopter to make it across town. <br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm in technology and this is my first time seeing one of these or the videos they create.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll take the occasion to say that it ain't the camera, it's the photographer. You can tell when someone has a good sense of visual drama. Here's another guy using a simple GoPro slung from a DJI Phantom, having a bit of fun over Niagra Falls:<br>

<a href="

<blockquote>

<p>imagine what a more sophisticated model could do</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tell me about it! It can really smack your wallet around, too. Below is a tree-top shot of my larger drone (which carries an NEX7 and took the sunset shot I linked to above). This little portrait was taken by a GoPro being carried by a small quad like the one you saw. Yeah, it was exciting flying both of them at the same time... but they each have GPS-based autopilot systems, and will return home to land if they lose the command signal from their associated transmitters.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Woops, here's that drone-shoots-drone snapshot.</p><div>[ATTACH=full]723910[/ATTACH]</div>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Autopilot? GPS. Hmmm. Only a matter of time before someone figures out how to use these to make special deliveries. Could you imagine if an inmate got their hands on one of these how popular they would be...</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The autopilot is what helps it to stay stable. It uses GPS to help it understand its position (relative to the operator on the ground) and its altitude. The off-the-shelf units don't have the ability to perform autonomous flight out to some destination (like, to a prison!). Waypoint style navigation is controlled from computer on the ground, and is still subject to transmitter range. <br /><br />You should, though, get started on that screenplay - I don't think I've see a TV plot that involved a drone-assisted prison breakout yet! You watch, these little things are going to positively <em>infest</em> TV mystery/crime plots over the next few years. </p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Like the old saying "The devil made me do it" I can just see it now. It wasn't me, it was the drones. They did it...<br>

Like a modern day Gremlins thing...</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The only problem hindering practical use of these for TV and movies is the robotic panning and swiveling. But the higher end rigs can probably solve that problem. Especially if it's combined with something like a radio receiver/transmitter or laser targeting to give the drone-dolly a target to track smoothly while passing.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The higher end rigs do indeed have that problem solved, Lex. The 3D gimbals are controlled by what amounts to an entirely separate system on the drone, usually controlled from the ground by a completely separate radio.<br /><br />My larger rig is set up that way: one TX for the pilot, and a second for the camera operator. That means that the camera operator's TX can be set up to ease the output from the sticks (which control camera pitch, roll, and yaw) so that they move gently - ramping into and out of changes in orientation. It can still take some practice, but the results can look great.<br /><br />I have the larger gimbal set up so that in one mode, the camera maintains its yaw orientation even as the bird changes it orientation. So, the aircraft can fly in a passing arc, for example, while the camera holds an angle. Many variations on that theme. Each of these subsystems have their own firmware, which the maker of that part is of course forever updating as they tinker.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Actually autonamous flight technology is available off the shelf. I've been flying R/C since I was four and have found it an interesting mental exercise to figure out just what really is possible. I can, with a little time and a few bucks build a large r/c model and have it fly itself to my friends house, about 225 miles, on it's own. I can program waypoints in, route it away from cities, airports, towers and so on and depending on weather, closely predict the flight time. I can track it easily on a laptop or tablet. This technology was developed 15 or twenty years ago by Maynard Hill and probably others but Hill flew one across the Atlantic to France quite some time ago. This technology is just trickling down from what military drones have been able to do for several years now. It's fascinating stuff and will take some time to sort out as it develops so quickly.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[chris_taylor16]

<p>Some things to consider. What is the source of your feelings "this feels illegal" if you carefully think about this you will discover it has nothing to do with people flying their model aircraft with low res wide angle camera's onboard and more to do with the "media demonization" of drones and the not entirely correct usage of the word "drone"<br>

<br />this is what gives you the heebee geebees feeling when you see it.<br>

<br />your 70-300 lens can capture "1000%" more detail than that drone can with its crappy lens crappy sensor and wide angle.<br>

YOUR shot can actually count the LED's on the drone while the drone could barely tell how many people were on the ground not to speak of gender and identity.<br>

<br />unless its 10ft off the ground and in your face it is not "ID'ing" anything about you.</p>

<p>these things are good for the same thing I use mine for and the same thing I have been duct taping small camera's to my model airplanes for 20 years are good for.</p>

<p>capturing gorgeous "landscape scenery" shots of places I want to remember from a unique unobstructed angle.</p>

<p>GO get one. not an expensive camera one but a cheap $30 one to play with about the size of your hand. you might realize how addicting the "concept" is when you think. I could put a camera on a larger one and get some GREAT shots.</p>

<p>to really get your juices going for how amazing these things can be search youtube for drone flies through fireworks. it will blow your mind.<br>

they are harmless. they can not harm you unless abused like ANYTHING can be abused. I can kill you with a baseball. not to speak of the baseball bat.<br>

<br />the likelyhood of me even harming you with a drone even if I intentionally tried to crash it into you at full speed is all but 0.</p>

<p>at least for small consumer copters.<br>

NOW government/military drones. THOSE you should be afraid of. they will not be tiny small things. they will be large and you will never even see them as they spy on you from thousands of feet away.</p>

[fumi_reed]

<p>Xiaomi will release <a href="http://www.igeekphone.com/xiaomi-will-announce-xiaomi-uav-rc-quadcopter-drone-at-100-this-month/">xiaomi drone </a>at the end of this month at 100usd according to igeekphone, do you know it is real about the price?</p>