America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
"Unless a meaningful distinction can be made between drone surveillance and more traditional forms of government tracking"Like helicopters, airplanes, CCTV, traffic cameras, DSLR cameras, binoculars, telescopes, (and for some agencies) satellites. Since the wording says that "unless a meaning distinction can be made", perhaps the author of this alarmist article could help give a distinction for us? How are drones a huge game changer? How do they do anything that isn´t already legal for both government AND civilians? I can hop in a plane right now, grab a friends telephoto camera, and go take pictures of your house, and so can the police, today, without the use of unmanned aircraft. And it´s LEGAL!So, unless someone can actually explain how this will all become "one nation under drones" as the picture portrays, and how it´s somehow drastically more invasive than the world we already live in, I´m inclined to think this is just a headline to to drum up sales. Or perhaps just a very poorly informed writer.Speaking of the headline, it´s inaccurate. All government "studies" aside, the FFA still does not let drones fly within the united states without very special and temporary permission. It is currently illegal to fly drones in civilian airspace not because they can look down on you (which anyone can, legally) but because they don´t have a pilot on board.
Website powered by Foundation