View Single Post
Old Nov 04, 2012, 10:50 PM
bmschulman is offline
Find More Posts by bmschulman
VP of Policy & Legal at DJI
bmschulman's Avatar
United States, NY, New York
Joined Oct 2006
1,146 Posts
The example about police is not appropriate. Of course there are some who are concerned about the abuses of police power and surveillance by the state. I'm not aware of any protests about hobby use of "drones" but this new AMA guideline raises a flag suggesting that we might be skirting a line. I really think that's a disservice to the model community, particularly when the definition is poorly written. I think the better way was to reference intent and/or anti-stalking laws and the like (i.e. don't use your FPV quad to follow your ex-girlfriend's car around town).

Here's an example. I remember FPV planes were used to catch poachers somewhere. They were also used to spot illegal bird traps in Europe. Both of those activities could have been legally spotted by full-scale aircraft, legally, at least in the USA. But it would have been prohibitively expensive. Are they saying we shouldn't use FPV for observational purposes beyond the recreational aspect? If so, they needed an expression of intent to protect people who inadvertently record something "private" and distinguish those who are actively trying to do so. Right now it reads like simply collecting photos, video and data of "property" is a violation of AMA rules. That is too broad, even if you believe the AMA was trying to shield us from negative PR on the privacy issue (which I accept as a reasonable explanation for why this is on the table, but not for why this was written in such an overbroad way).
bmschulman is offline Find More Posts by bmschulman
RCG Plus Member