A Ban on Aerial Photography in NH?

Pineedles · 02-27-2013, 10:55 AM

You are right RJ, bad apples in every party.

Onshore · 02-27-2013, 11:29 AM

The sponsor is a really conservative republican. The issue that prompted this bill was protect of privacy from nosy neighbors and possible "stalker types." Originally this was not about government. I believe if you pull the bill language (hb619) you will note that an amendment was added to preserve the current abilities of law enforcement. Law enforcement, or government, was not part of the original bill structure and purpose, but as will happen once people start discussing a bill they realize it has effects that had not originally thought of when it was introduced. This is part of the process and the number of bills that are discussed and moved to study or voted inexpedient to legislate shows that the process does allow rational thought to prevail more often than not.

I remember reading quite some time ago that there were concerns about the fact that "drones," which could include an RC helicopter outfitted with a camera, are very cheap and easy to obtain and that they were now within the means of individuals that might use them to harass, intimidate, or extort others. I suspect this was an attempt to get ahead of the curve on this issue and not one with nefarious purposes. If nothing else it will call attention to an issue that should cause one pause if one were to actually give it a bit of thought.

brk-lnt · 02-27-2013, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

The sponsor is a really conservative republican. The issue that prompted this bill was protect of privacy from nosy neighbors and possible "stalker types." Originally this was not about government. I believe if you pull the bill language (hb619) you will note that an amendment was added to preserve the current abilities of law enforcement. Law enforcement, or government, was not part of the original bill structure and purpose, but as will happen once people start discussing a bill they realize it has effects that had not originally thought of when it was introduced. This is part of the process and the number of bills that are discussed and moved to study or voted inexpedient to legislate shows that the process does allow rational thought to prevail more often than not.

I remember reading quite some time ago that there were concerns about the fact that "drones," which could include an RC helicopter outfitted with a camera, are very cheap and easy to obtain and that they were now within the means of individuals that might use them to harass, intimidate, or extort others. I suspect this was an attempt to get ahead of the curve on this issue and not one with nefarious purposes. If nothing else it will call attention to an issue that should cause one pause if one were to actually give it a bit of thought.

I did read through the bill, and there was also a fairly lengthy discussion about it on another tech website I participate in.

Among the overall silliness of it (if you fly over NH on your way in or out of MHT will get you to jail if you take a pic with your cellphone?) I have concerns with things like this that restrict things from the people, and grant them only to law enforcement.

This seems like a bill that is either drafted by a very clueless individual, or drafted in excess for purposes of attention and to whittle it down to a concession, which would seem reasonable in relation to the original bill, but still excessive in relation to current standards.

Also, there are FAA laws already about aerial devices that make this bill mostly redundant anyway.

Onshore · 02-27-2013, 04:08 PM

I understand what you are saying about this bill as it exists today. I completely agree that it would be foolish to make it illegal to take a picture from a commercial flight coming or going from any airport in NH. Think about small plane or balloon charter flights. Are we going to tell tourists not to take pictures? That issue alone should kill this thing.

That said I think the availability of drones and what they can allow people to do, whether those people are private individuals, government, or corporate, is worth having a serious discussion about. Perhaps we don't fully understand the issue. If that is the case, then certainly we should not attempt to regulate what we do not understand. But if this bill serves to bring the topic out for serious discussion and increase awareness then it will have been worthwhile. Hopefully this will be one of those times when rational thought prevails.

Happy Gourmand · 02-27-2013, 04:32 PM

If they are concerned with stalking and invasion of privacy, maybe they could have this apply to unmanned flights only, that is, radio controlled drones.
But even that is an invasion to our rights.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-27-2013, 10:55 AM	#1
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,545 Thanks: 1,072 Thanked 668 Times in 367 Posts	You are right RJ, bad apples in every party.

02-27-2013, 11:29 AM	#2
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 502 Thanks: 12 Thanked 423 Times in 145 Posts	The sponsor is a really conservative republican. The issue that prompted this bill was protect of privacy from nosy neighbors and possible "stalker types." Originally this was not about government. I believe if you pull the bill language (hb619) you will note that an amendment was added to preserve the current abilities of law enforcement. Law enforcement, or government, was not part of the original bill structure and purpose, but as will happen once people start discussing a bill they realize it has effects that had not originally thought of when it was introduced. This is part of the process and the number of bills that are discussed and moved to study or voted inexpedient to legislate shows that the process does allow rational thought to prevail more often than not. I remember reading quite some time ago that there were concerns about the fact that "drones," which could include an RC helicopter outfitted with a camera, are very cheap and easy to obtain and that they were now within the means of individuals that might use them to harass, intimidate, or extort others. I suspect this was an attempt to get ahead of the curve on this issue and not one with nefarious purposes. If nothing else it will call attention to an issue that should cause one pause if one were to actually give it a bit of thought.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Onshore For This Useful Post:
Natt (02-28-2013), Pontoon Goon (02-27-2013)

02-27-2013, 04:08 PM	#4
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 502 Thanks: 12 Thanked 423 Times in 145 Posts	I understand what you are saying about this bill as it exists today. I completely agree that it would be foolish to make it illegal to take a picture from a commercial flight coming or going from any airport in NH. Think about small plane or balloon charter flights. Are we going to tell tourists not to take pictures? That issue alone should kill this thing. That said I think the availability of drones and what they can allow people to do, whether those people are private individuals, government, or corporate, is worth having a serious discussion about. Perhaps we don't fully understand the issue. If that is the case, then certainly we should not attempt to regulate what we do not understand. But if this bill serves to bring the topic out for serious discussion and increase awareness then it will have been worthwhile. Hopefully this will be one of those times when rational thought prevails.

02-27-2013, 04:32 PM	#5
Happy Gourmand Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Ruskin FL Posts: 1,027 Thanks: 188 Thanked 322 Times in 179 Posts	If they are concerned with stalking and invasion of privacy, maybe they could have this apply to unmanned flights only, that is, radio controlled drones. But even that is an invasion to our rights.