Graham Barrisk

Under the current drone law, there would have been a much different outcome than in the Trinity River case cited above. If that case were to have happened today, there would have been serious ramifications to the model planes' operator. He would have been given a citation for merely taking or possessing each photo and arrested if he released the photographs to a third party. There would have been civil liability in the amount of $5000 for possession of the photographs, and up to $10,000 if even one picture was released. To add insult to injury, the photographs could not be used in any civil or criminal action, except to prove that they had been taken illegally. And if that weren’t enough, no evidence subsequently gathered as a result of the photographs could be used in court, since the initial evidence was gathered illegally. One can only ask who this legislation was intended to protect? Of course, governmental drones are unaffected and exempt from these types of

Municipalities all across the United States are starting to use unmanned Arial drones to supplement their policing strategy such as in Arlington, Texas. The Supreme Court has ruled on the use of drones in the court case California V. Ciraolo, which determined that “an individual’s private property is not protected by the Fourth Amendment as long as an aircraft is in navigable airspace; in this case, the altitude was 1,000 feet. “The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye,” the Court said.” (Bomboy, Constitution Daily 2017). This means that drone footage can be used by police without the need for a warrant. There is a time for everything in life, the questions before the New Orleans community is simple. If not now, when? If not us, who? The very definition of insanity is to do the same and expect a different result; as this paper has illustrated we have and are doing the same thing for a long time. Perhaps now, we can try something

Earlier this year a federal judge in the Western District of Kentucky dismissed a lawsuit brought by a drone pilot, David Boggs, against the “Drone Slayer” William Merideth, a Kentucky man who shot down a drone that he believed was flying over his own property in 2015. Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, the ruling leaves open many questions concerning aerial trespass and federal authority.

When the topic of drones is brought up, some may think they are not among us and are objects of the future, while others may have one that they’ve built themselves and put to use already. Drones are being talked about more and more but not necessarily all for good reasons. The reading titled “From the Eyes of a Drone” by Tomas van Houtryve touches upon how drones affect surveillance, photography, and use for weapons. In a BBC article, “Drones: What Are They and How Do They Work?” the author goes into specific detail on how the United States is planning to use drones for the military. If regular drone use becomes a normality in society, it is true that amazing photography will be a positive outcome but what about privacy? Drones can aid the military as well, but if they are released for the general public to use on the daily things may get out of control. While drones can impact several aspects of life positively, they can create even more harm than one may think.

The government shouldn’t permit the use of drones, due to cost, failure, and availability. Over the years the government has been bus with more troubling matters as in drug legalization, elections, and the recent police cruelty. They shouldn’t waste time and money on something so small and complicated that will hardly make a difference in the community.

There is an ongoing debate over local law enforcement’s ability to use domestic drones to aid in operations. Domestic drones or UAVs , Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, have the potential to carry out many tasks like surveillance or riot control. Imagine a scenario where there is a possible bomb threat. A drone could be used for the good to investigate the area instead of using law enforcement officer whose lives could potentially be in danger. On the other hand there is the issue of armed drones that could lead to the abuse of power.

This article was about drones. Not military drones, but the average drone that everyday people are capable of handling. In the beginning, the article goes over what this type of drone really is. The important point within this section of the paper is how; despite its name’s similarity to its military counterpart, the drone is used widely by journalists. The article continues onto the most global part of the focus, explaining how problems began to arise concerning the drones, thus having regulations placed on them. Paul Egglestone, James Boyer and other reporters who use drones, do discuss the different characteristics of the regulations and how they affect the use of the drones. The article then discusses the ethical standpoint when concerning the drones. Given there is a large concern over the invasion of one’s privacy related to drone the rules and regulations also got entangled with privacy laws. Though this problem is thought to be less of a hassle further in the future.

Would you like to see around the neighborhood or are interested in seeing a tragic accident nearby? Drones (UAVs) maybe your go to. What are drones? Well they are the growing idea and flying electronic that many people are wanting. You may be familiar with this device from the T.V. show, “Last Man on Earth.” These drones are being used for many things nut one of them is being used for the freedom of flying these drones everywhere and anywhere they want. Or at least people think they can go wherever they want with them, but if given to the wrong people can cause much animosity among peers. With that being said I strongly believe drones should be carefully watched on who purchases these popular devices and what they are used for.

We, as a consulting firm consider that police departments intend to seek permission for using drones in assisting them to fight crime and make use of drones to patrol residential neighborhoods (Leber, 2013). Drones have become a contemporary icon for efficient police’s air power in recognizing the imminent public danger. It is a small step in community policing, but it is huge for our

Even departments and agencies who do not typically utilize drones are strongly influenced to have regulations for the use of drones among citizens. For example, Utah passed legislation that states that flying a drone within 250 feet of a wildfire is a class b misdemeanor, and Michigan passed legislation that states that prohibits registered sex offenders from using a UAV, or a drone, to follow or photograph a person whom they are not allowed to contact (Kenyon, 2017). Civilians can not only use drones, but they can easily abuse them. Matt Kenyon (2017) strongly believes that “good law enforcement drone policy can help guide your officers in handling disputes over drones… it can help your officers determine what

After World War I, the United States began development on drones, or remote-control pilotless aircrafts (Drones). These premature drones were suspended from development until recently, due to advances in rocket technology (Drones). Recently, there has been an emphasis on the development of drones, and they have become more advanced than what was initially anticipated. Drones have ameliorated to the extent that they now possess the ability to obliterate multiple cities at a time, or even violate our civil rights by spying on us when we don’t want them to. Although drones can be used to help protect our country, drones should be banned because they can oversee us against our bidding and can easily be reprogrammed.

In this article “Drones” and the Future of domestic Aviation written by John Villasenor states the benefits of drones, airspace safety and the benefits of the civilians. The article states a brief summary of how drones came about to be. Drones also known as unmanned aircraft were developed in the mid-20th century by the following countries United States, the Soviet Union, Russia, France and Japan. According to the article, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funded the California-based AeroVironment built the first Nano Hummingbird which weighed less than 20 grams and it was capable of taking a video. Drones are a new growing technology but it still has the cons which brings the value of the product down. The negative side of unmanned aircraft is the invasion of privacy.

Drones the new aviation frontier. One of the hottest objects on the market today, Drones sound like a fun toy to fly around the yard but what about the drone that are advanced technology. The drones that have been weponized, the drones that can be flown miles away from the receiver and have a 360 camera on it. The drones that can carry bombs at high speeds while also being undected by air radars. Drone are a huge advancement in technology but who and what should be trusted with the power a drone can possess. Drones need to be watch and restricted very harshly. Drones made on the market for civilians need to be the most simple of all drones to protect the privacy and to protect the people. Drones don’t need to be available to everyone. There

A disaster can occur, unexpectedly, at any given moment. Whether that catastrophe is anything ranging from a fire to an earthquake, it is important to have the most advanced technology available. Drones can serve as useful tools to minimize casualties during dangerous situations. Although it is argued that drones are a potential privacy concern, drone use for public safety should be allowed when authorized to help during natural disasters and respond to emergencies.

Therefore Causby suggests that AS Ltd activity poses the risk of committing a tort, even if drones are flown above the supposed height requirements and lies within the Civil Liability Act . However in general AS Ltd will not infringe the rights of the possessor of land if their drones are flown above the height required for the ordinary use of the land (30 metres above cars, buildings or people as recommended by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)) . CASA however has issued around 100 warnings to drone users for safety breaches, flying below the required height. AS Ltd’s likelihood of being liable for trespass is therefore increased. If flown below this height, the intrusion into airspace will likely amount to a trespass.