Texas Declares War On Robots 387
Mr_Blank writes "Organizations like the EFF and ACLU have been raising the alarm over increased government surveillance of U.S. citizens. Legislators haven't been quick to respond to concerns of government spying on citizens. But Texas legislators are apparently quite concerned that private citizens operating hobby drones might spot environmental violations by businesses. Representative Lance Gooden has introduced HB912 which proposes: 'A person commits an offense if the person uses or authorizes the use of an unmanned vehicle or aircraft to capture an image without the express consent of the person who owns or lawfully occupies the real property captured in the image. ('Image' is defined as including any type of recorded telemetry from sensors that measure sound waves, thermal, infrared, ultraviolet, visible light, or other electromagnetic waves, odor, or other conditions.)' Can you foresee any unintended consequences if this proposal becomes law?"
Another reader notes that New Hampshire has introduced a similar bill: "Neal Kurk, a Republican member of New Hampshire's House of Representatives knows that those drones present a growing privacy concern, and in response has introduced a bill that would ban all aerial photography in the state. That is, unless you're working for the government. The bill, HB 619-FN (PDF), is blessedly short, and I suggest reading the whole thing for yourself." Here's part of the bill: "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground."
Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
If I take a picture in a hot air balloon of a sunset and happen to capture an empty field that I do not own, am I guilty?
What about drones require special treatment v.s. existing peeping tom laws? http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/peeping-tom.aspx
Re: (Score:2)
If I take a picture in a hot air balloon of a sunset and happen to capture an empty field that I do not own, am I guilty?
What about drones require special treatment v.s. existing peeping tom laws? http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/peeping-tom.aspx [quickanddirtytips.com]
If by "empty," you mean "not containing people or 'man made' objects," then you'd be jake. Or form an LLC and employ yourself to watch from your balloon for some regulatory violation of your -- well, your company's -- choice.
Re: (Score:3)
I should have mentioned that my above comment refers to the New Hampshire case. In the Texas case, the bill says "unmanned vehicle or aircraft". Assuming that that's interpreted as "unmanned vehicle or unmanned aircraft," then riding in the balloon shooting photos vs. operating it remotely would seem to be OK.
Unless I can't understand Texas legalese, which is entirely possible.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't wait to see the TV weather report in Texas if this passes...
"Well as y'all know, we lost our weather satellite, so, here goes: it was purty hot today, so I reckon probably purty dang hot tomorrow, too. Ain't no clouds right now, but 'cha never know, do ya.
Billy-Joe; back to you..."
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Am I the only who reads this text as a double edged sword and that somebody has picked on the wrong edge?
Namely I read this text (and yes I actually went to the original text of the bill) as protecting people, not just corporations. But hey the definition of people in the context of a corporation is another can of worms. Essentially this would stop paparazzi from taking pictures of you while nude sunbathing in a protected pool area. While I understand the double edged sword part is that it would potentially
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
I may agree with you on some things, but I have to say I do not agree with you concerning the pollution. It is one thing if it was a mistake, but you could even see the blood in the river from google maps:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/01/dallas-river-turns-red-hog-blood/1042/ [theatlanticcities.com]
That is well beyond any sort of innocent error. I am all for punishing people that seriously violate environmental laws.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Texas bill is specifically in response to a hobbyist model plane with video camera catching this [dailymail.co.uk] slaughterhouse polluting a Texas river. I find it infuriating that the response of a politician to a polluter being caught isn't to ask the local EPA to more tightly monitor likely offenders but to criminalize the act of reporting the pollution!
Re: (Score:3)
Even if your hot air balloon was unmanned and fell within the purview of this law, i would suggest sending any environmental violations you find anonymously to the appropriate (preferably federal) agency.
As someone who builds equipment that is robotic (or at least drone like), I find such laws offensive. First I really have no interest in playing Team Austin Green Police, and second, if I'm using my robots to trespass, I understand being charged with trespassing. And down here it's probably legal to shoot m
Re: (Score:2)
By empty field, I meant farmhouse. :P
Are you in Texas? Is the farmhouse on fire?
Re:Really? CAN YOU READ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hate people who automatically associate intelligence with political alignment. Google "non sequitur."
Re:Really? CAN YOU READ? (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't read the whole TFS, and just jumped to conclusions based on someone expressing a differing opinion than you, didn't you?
Generally these balloons are manned, but not always, even so, if you read a little further down, you'll see.
for which the GP's post is a perfectly valid response.
If I were more like you, I could probably trail this up with
"Republican, I'll bet. Conservative as well."
However, there are potentially plenty of other reasons for your assinine behavior.
Independant, I am. Moderate as well. Both parties suck as much ass as these two laws. It's just government fellatio of the corporate world, wasting our money and granting to the rich and powerful in the form or more money or power. Both parties do it, and the general population suffers.
Now, if they banned government an private (but not just hobby) drones, these bills would be ok - but they aren't, they are targeting the least powerful groups to protect the more powerful groups.
Google Earth (Score:5, Funny)
So what, will entire states just be blacked out of satellite view?
Re:Google Earth (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lance Gooden (Score:5, Informative)
It's hard to google up very much info on that [expletive omitted]. He is quite proud of his bona fides of past disservice. [lancegooden.com] He wants to do for corporate criminals what he's done for wealthy voters, protecting them from the vox populi.
Lance was also able to help steer a voter ID bill into law... and was proud to see Texas step up to protect the integrity of our elections.
Yep, they pile it high in Texas.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not just satellite view per se. Consider that just about every type of weather data gathering device will be blocked as well since most are likely to capture an image of in-property doppler shift of rain drops or a radar map of fog/cloud cover or a temperature map of potentially radiating heat*. Of course, it's entirely absurd that the requirement whether a vehicle is unmanned or not since I'm pretty sure if the whole idea is that the images are a violation in themselves that having a living witness reall
Re:Google Earth (Score:5, Funny)
"A dog can smell things that a person would reasonably think is private."
bad dog!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see where Texas has jurisdiction in this matter.
Re: (Score:3)
I could probably see your point IF it also applied to govt too.
Frankly I'm
Street View (Score:2)
No photography?!?! (Score:2)
I guess they don't want a film industry (Score:2)
No more shots from a helicopter.
Also I would guess we are only a few years from replacing camera on boom or rails with a flying digital camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Unmanned means there is nobody in the vehicle. Even if you're still operating it (remotely) it still counts as unmanned.
Example: Predator drones are unmanned, however there are operators flying them and consenting weapons release.
Wonderful, just wonderful (Score:2)
nor are [they] intended to limit employees of governmental agencies or other entities, public or private, who, in the course and scope of their employment and supported by articulable suspicion, attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of a person during an investigation, surveillance, or monitoring of conduct to obtain evidence of suspected illegal activity.
"arÂticÂuÂlaÂble, adj. That can be articulated"
"Definition of articulable: capable of being articulated"
Aren't you glad these are people writing laws? So as long as the suspicion can be voiced or sign-languaged (or maybe winked with Morse code?), it's good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As usual... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The main reason why there is no exemption for corporations is that you can't weasel out of this law by creating a "Green NPO" to sniff out their rotting waste cans.
A typical solution to this 'problem' would be to require a license, predicated on a series of vague requirements, with broad discretionary authority for rejection. That way it could be ensured that only proper cronies gain access.
impractical (Score:2)
There are definitely inappropriate uses of robotic photography, but this isn't the solution.
Airplane/Photographer hobbyist (Score:4, Insightful)
There was a fellow who had as his hobbies being a private pilot and amateur photographer. Part of how he funded these hobbies was taking a nice camera with him on flights, photographing farms from the air, then selling the framed prints to the farm's residents. It was a bit of an odd business model, as when he was taking the photos he had not previously contacted the residents and had no idea if they would be willing to pay for the photos ...
The way some of these bits of legislation are worded, that business model would be illegal. So that is a bit of an unintended consequence.
amateur photography (Score:2)
So, it appears that this is outlawing attaching a camera to your kite, to a model rocket, to an arrow... many forms of amateur photography are basically becoming misdemeanor offenses. so if one decides to start their iphone recording and throw it up into the air to see what they can see, or throw their recording ipad like a frisbee in the park, if either captures images of a place or person who didn't give express permission to photograph, you could be charged.
that's all nutso to me.
Re: (Score:2)
... as nutso as tossing iPhones and iPads around like that?
No film at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: No film at 11 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that news choppers are not unmanned.
Slight edit required methinks (Score:3)
I suspect that "A person commits an offense..." would read better as "'A person or government commits an offense..."
^_^
What They Really Are Trying To Do (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course that's not it. This is in response to environmentalists catching polluters. It's in response to things like this
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/29/001201/drone-photos-lead-to-indictment-for-texas-polluters
Many people believe that they can do anything they want on their land, and corrupt politicians often support them.
Supported by the ground? (Score:2)
So basically, any organization outside the US (including foreign governments with remote sensing satellites) can now see what it is illegal for US residents to see? Wow.
And WTF does support by the ground mean? If I take videos/pictures as a pilot or a passenger of an aircraft, does that count? What if I do launch a baloon, but have to manually tell it to take pictures and have the instructions sent wirelessly (which, umm, I do every 1/10 of a second by my ground-based triggering mechanism)?
Re: (Score:2)
And WTF does support by the ground mean?
The atmosphere is supported by the ground. Flying things are supported by the atmosphere. So what is the problem?
Stupid should hurt. (Score:3)
> and in response has introduced a bill that would ban all aerial photography in the state.
So land surveyors and photogrammetrists are the enemy now?
--
BMO
Let's make a list of things "only for government" (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it might be easier so that we can properly make all of these class distinctions clear.
So Assault weapons, for example, should only be available to government and government contractors who may or may not be working for the government at any given moment. Aerial drones? Same story.
We have to make these class distinctions clear or else many people will unwittingly make the mistake of thinking we have a government of the people, by the people and/or for the people. This is simply not the case and we should all be 100% clear on that point.
Odor sensors banned in Washington, DC (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently odor sensors have been banned in the entire beltway area because of their ability to detect and identify the sources of bullsh*t.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly officer. . . . (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't know it was a government drone, I thought it was just some lawbreaker's. . . . . that's why I shot it down.
The Paddleborough problem (Score:5, Informative)
I notice the NH wording has no mention of consent. So not only can I not take a picture of your dwelling, you can't either, nor can you ask me to. (hell, if you ask me, and I do it, thats conspiracy!)
We had an issue here in MA a while back where a private BDSM party got raided by police, for this very sort of issue.... paddles and whips were called "insturments of abuse", because there is no provision in the law for consent.
Re: (Score:3)
that usually is easily overturned/thrown out by the concept that assault by its very definition included a lack of consent, so any sexual activity between two consenting adults is thereby automatically not assualt due to the presence of consent.
Funny (Score:3)
I had Texas pegged as building the biggest, meanest, most picture-takingest robots that you ever damn saw, son.
Re: (Score:2)
DIYdrones (Score:4, Funny)
A real unintended consequence (Score:2)
An outright ban would probably result in the death of a search & rescue subject. Adding a proviso that exempts volunteer search & rescue organizations is required here and it specifically needs to address training activities that normally do not involve law enforcement.
WTF (Score:3)
I'll make it a habit to jump around, jump around, jump up jump up and get down when I'm taking pictures in NH, to make sure my feet aren't on the ground for any of them.
Live free or die, my ass.
appropriate comic (Score:3)
Obligatory XKCD.... wait, no, Happiness and Cyanide.
http://www.explosm.net/comics/1783/ [explosm.net]
BIG loophole (Score:2)
So, taking pictures of the EXTERIOR of the dwelling from a drone is acceptable. Taking pictures of the INTERIOR is acceptable and lawful under the NH bill.
These laws are just plain dumb. We should be dealing with the trespass/stalking/harassment activities underlying this, not the act of photographing.
Re: (Score:2)
exterior bad, interior good. I cant type today.
Photograph YOUR OWN property, break the law? (Score:2)
If a person flies a model airplane with a camera in the airspace over THEIR OWN property and takes pictures of THEIR OWN home that includes no images of anyone else's property or possessions, that would be illegal according to my reading of the New Hampshire bill and the law it's modifying. [There's no clause in that bill indicating that it's not a crime if the owner of the property gives permission. The law it's modifying specifically defines and refers to private locations, but the bill doesn't use that s
Get Out of Jail Free Cards (Score:2)
Wait until someone captures a crime that authorities *want* to prosecute and the evidence get tossed because of this bill.
They'll get my Estes Camroc when they pry my cold dead fingers from the launch button...
Government vs Private (Score:2)
I'm less worried about private citizens taking photos of private property than I am about Government taking photos of private property, all other things being equal. The fact that government is scared of the citizenry and is passing laws against them is very troubling to me. We should be scared of this type of legislation as it does not bode well for us commoners.
Not much protection from Government spying (Score:2)
America, f**k yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
To paraphrase:
"We are worried that drones might catch us breaking the law. That is just unconstitutional, we have a right to break the law and not get caught."
Selective enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
These are examples of laws used selectively on occassion to harass people who encounter an officer on a bad day. The local RC club isn't likely to run into problems but a group of kids using an AR.Drone to record their skateboarding might get fined and lose the device.
It seems to be the way laws are written anymore. Everyone is a criminal in the eyes of the law, so be quiet, sit down and don't draw attention to yourself. If you speak out they'll find a way to come after you.
Siiiiigh... (Score:3)
But Texas legislators are apparently quite concerned that private citizens operating hobby drones might spot environmental violations by businesses.
Only in this backwards ass state is finding people breaking the law considered a bad thing.
Residential Limitation Only (Score:2)
This only applies to residences, so the factory would still have been OK to photograph. Even residences, w/o identifiable people, are OK.
In addition. the proviso other entities, public or private, who, in the course and scope of their employment may conduct surveillance would let a broad range of activities to pass muster under the law. An environmental group could have people conduct surveillance if they feel a law is being broken, for example.
Representative Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The founders of the US didn't want direct democracy because they were (rightly) afraid of rule by the uneducated mob.
Unfortunately, the uneducated mob elects uneducated representatives, or worse, people who should know better, but turn off their "that's fucking stupid" filter because "I owe this guy a favor."
I don't know what to replace what we've got, but clearly representative democracy has failed in many ways.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
The founders of the US didn't want direct democracy because they were (rightly) afraid of rule by the uneducated mob.
And this is why, in spite of the many brilliant and benevolent things they wrote into the constitution, they were still part of the problem. They focused on ways to keep the plebes down instead of ways to lift them up. I note that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness failed to make the cut.
Laws against taking pictures in public (Score:3)
Not to go all Godwin but this reminds me of something I noticed recently at a show of photos by Roman Vishniac: apparently one of the laws the Nazis passed in 1933 was to prohibit Jews from taking pictures in public. (Vishniac apparently snuck around this by having his daughter pose next to things he wanted to photograph.) Just a reminder of the sort of people who push for this kind of law....
Uncle Joe says.. (Score:5, Funny)
Joe Biden says just shoot them out of the sky with a shotgun.
This? again? (Score:3)
These laws will do the exact opposite then what people seem to want.
The government agency's and police officer will be exempt. You want them to behave, then let everyone have cameras. This applies to cell phones, drones, dash cams etc...
If you produce frequency that can be detected by people/devices not on your property, you don't have a right to control that.
Unintended consequences ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Business related:
I doubt that the could ban satellite imagery, since that happens completely outside of Texas' jurisdiction, and would have a difficult time enforcing the law when the drone is launched out of state, unless the airspace belongs to the state. But it would discourage such companies from operating in the state of Texas, which reflects lost economic opportunities.
There may be something to be said for preventing corporate espionage, but there is also something to be said for independent monitoring of state and federal laws. That's true even if the "independent" monitor is a competitor, since the only effective way to operate in a regime of relaxed regulation enforcement is the break regulations yourself. An example cited is the enforcement of environmental regulations. Relaxed enforcement in this area would impede the growth of green industries, and leave future generations to pay for the environmental repercussions.
There would also be reduced innovation in other areas. Drones could be useful for a number of purposes on large properties. The ones I can think of is monitoring crops, search and rescue, as well as security (but there are surely others). Accidental spill-over may result in charges being pressed, thus discouraging the development and use of such technologies within the state.
Non-business:
This would effectively make some hobby or learning projects illegal. Let's face it, creating an unmanned vehicle that can take photographs is pretty exciting to some people. Cut out that option, and you may be discouraging people from pursuing science and technology related careers since they would not develop or maintain the interest.
So what it comes down to is (Score:4, Interesting)
in Texas it is a crime to report a crime!
God those people are so f*ed up it is just amazing.
No more geo-tagging? (Score:3)
creating an image ... with the assistance of a satellite
Wouldn't geo-tagging photos be considered having "assistance" from a satellite?
Just goes to show. (Score:3)
Here we have a Perfect Storm wherein the Republicans combine their total allegiance to corporations (and the resultant $$) with their incredible stupidity. That coined saying, "any sufficiently massive stupidity is indistinguishable from evil," comes into play too.
Meanwhile, where's all those TeaBagger Repubs? They should be screaming "no Big Government interference with our personal R/C video tools!"
Big shocker (Score:4, Informative)
Lance Gooden [wikipedia.org] is a Republican. This is the party that is always talking about Big Government, "freedom from government", etc. Freedom from government unless your rich friends get caught polluting a river by a drone that is.
fighting wind mills (Score:3)
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/03/287119/british-army-unveils-new-spy-drone/ [presstv.ir]
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/04/British-army-unveils-toy-sized-Black-Hornet-drones/7671360008879/ [upi.com]
??
Re:Reductio Ad Hitlerum? (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. SCOTUS has ruled that if you can see it in public then it's OK to photograph. The problem the EFF has with drones is the use of continuous surveillance of an individual constituting a search.
Re: (Score:2)
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy, except when they are in public. Also, corporations aren't people. So if your agg business is dumping shit into a stream and I get a picture of it from my drone, its the companies bad, not mine.
Re:Reductio Ad Hitlerum? (Score:5, Insightful)
Relax, corporations are people in nearly every way. They just can't vote. But to compensate for it, they decide who we get to vote on.
Re: (Score:3)
or just lay out sunbathing nude for a few days. :P
if you're all pasty white and hairy like me, they're almost garunteed to detect it and blur it to spare anyone ever having to see that.
Re:Reductio Ad Hitlerum? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I'm pretty sure you do own the airspace above your land up to a certain altitude, but you certainly don't own the airspace adjacent to your property, which is what this bill seems to be aimed at... If you don't want stray photons incriminating you, don't release them into adjacent areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've distinctly gotten the impression that American's have a heck of a lot stronger (almost zealous) "my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed, if they're a tresspassn' I'm allowed to shoot em" fantasy.
So, seriously? You don't lock the doors or windows of your home? Or do you, too, have an "(almost zealous) 'my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed'..." fantasy, enforced by lock and key?
Re:incercept all coms, np, watch backyard, oh noes (Score:4, Insightful)
Inorite? We've used fighter jets to blow up brown people for decades, but only now do they start complaining about drone strikes?
Oh, wait - Estimated cost of an F35, $110M. Actual cost of an unmanned reconnaissance drone, $299.99 [amazon.com]. Which of those do you see Officer Obie casually using to peek through your bedroom window or check out your backyard pool party?
Overall, though, these rules completely disgust me. They get it exactly backward, allowing a class proven untrustworthy when given new surveillance technology to use them, while blocking any possible citizen-initiated use of the same.
I suppose I have only one thing to say - I have a shotgun, and don't tolerate weird-looking noisy birds in my backyard. So go ahead, send me some challenging skeet, boys!
Re: (Score:2)
I've distinctly gotten the impression that American's have a heck of a lot stronger (almost zealous) "my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed, if they're a tresspassn' I'm allowed to shoot em" fantasy.
Got bad news for ya, Chief - that's no fantasy.
But hey, don't take my word for it, go ahead and kick in your neighbor's door and find out for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't get why so many American's are up in arms about un-manned aircraft - there have been aircraft "looking down into" their backyards for 100 years now, who cares if it has a pilot IN IT or not. Tons and tons of police driving by your house LOOKING INTO your yard.
But almost no-one has raised near one third the stink about almost all their personal private conversations being intercepted and sifted through.
I've distinctly gotten the impression that American's have a heck of a lot stronger (almost zealous) "my home is my castle, my own little personal country where no one is allowed, if they're a tresspassn' I'm allowed to shoot em" fantasy.
Unmanned aircraft remove so much of the cost of airborne surveillance that it becomes practical on a wholesale level, and moves the use from the realm of targeted surveillance to persistent surveillance.
And yes, I have been raising a heluva stink about other, considerably more threatening, privacy invasions and outright abrogations of constitutional limits on government power and authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Government exemptions are implied.
Re:Goolgle maps and others will be banned in new T (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well it *is* just a _theory_.
Re:Goolgle maps and others will be banned in new T (Score:5, Funny)
Some years ago, while I was working on the North Slope, in Alaska, I was having a conversation with a Texan fresh out of high school. He commented that the planes must fly slower up here, because the flight from Anchorage to Deadhorse was so long. When I tried to correct him, he had difficulty wrapping his head around the idea that Texas wasn't the biggest state, because, he said, "It's what I learned in school."
I know it's offtopic, but I still chuckle over that 20 years after the fact.
Re: (Score:3)
I went through the Texan school system. We learned that Texas was the third largest state. . .
. . .this is bullshit. . .
Yes, it is. My story wasn't supposed to reflect all of Texas, you blithering moron. It's just a funny story. I've lived in Vermont, Texas, Washington, California, Alabama, et c. Idiots are everywhere, which you quite ably help demonstrate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Okay then... (Score:4, Funny)
Except that, with the accuracy of Apple Maps, you ask them to black out Texas, and it'll be New Jersey that disappears off the maps!
I fail to see this as a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
We ask Google and Apple to disable maps apps in Texas, since you have the option to view the satellite imagery and street view data.
... replaced with a static image of Yosemite Sam mooning the viewer.
Re: (Score:2)
Arrest who? You can't citizens' arrest a company.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but NOAA takes these awesome pictures of some land in Texas. Some other non-government person, while looking at the pictures, sees something...funny...and reports it to the law? Is that any different in intent? Whether I toss up an unmanned object that takes a picture of something funny, or I look at existing photos the end result could be the same, capturing an illegal act.
This is not a well thought out law (in both states) and as such would seem to be more interested in protecting criminals then l