Most of the folks that know me know I blog as an obsession. As a techie, I have always tried to get to that next step that many bloggers couldn’t. When many were just using text, we added pictures. Then added audio interviews, then recorded video, and then finally livestreaming. We continually added to our capabilities technically in going to events and put them all together to bring events that the MSM wouldn’t cover to those that couldn’t be there (or simply chose not to).
Then drones came on the scene – and I’ve wanted one for quite some time. Not the military type, but the pro-sumer quad or octorotator that would be safe, stable – and can have a camera that could livestream a point of view feed that I otherwise could not get – yet another tool to enhance what we do for our readers and watchers. However, it seems like Govt is about to, once again, do a one size fits all that would preclude that next step (at either outdoor events or in large ballroom type settings). From the Telegraph (yes, Kevin, we read you at times; reformatted and emphasis mine)
Bill to restrict drone use in NH gets panel approval
CONCORD – A move to severely restrict the use of drones to protect citizen privacy cleared a key committee Thursday. State Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, said he has learned from the pitfalls of a failed attempt in 2013 to ban drones from taking pictures of peoples’ houses. And Kurk said he’s willing to keep compromising to eventually win over support from the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union and the New Hampshire Association of Broadcasters, both of which have raised First Amendment concerns about his bill (HB 1620). “We are all in agreement on what we want to accomplish but just don’t have an agreement yet on how to get there,” Kurk said.
I’m fine and dandy with protecting citizen privacy, especially at their homes. Doesn’t matter if it is a private, commercial, or governmental drone (especially a government drone). But!
The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee liked well enough what Kurk has done to date and voted 12-5 to recommend that the House pass the measure. Rep. Robert Renny Cushing, D-Hampton, said this is a cutting-edge issue whose time has come, given the expanding use of unmanned aircraft by government and commercial sponsors. “I think this is important to recognize we don’t have any tools in our law books to address this technology that is changing so rapidly than our Founding Fathers could have possibly anticipated,” Cushing said.
Sigh. I get so tired of hearing that the Founders couldn’t imagine TV, or radio, or machine guns or bazookas or any other technology. It really doesn’t matter what the technology is – what the Founders did was to write a document (ok, two) that outlined how to deal with base human nature to keep Govt from taking our Liberties rather than protecting them. They laid down basic tenets, basic philosophies that still hold true as they studied what hadn’t worked in the past and tried to set a framework that is technology agnostic. Quill, pen, printing press, radio, TV, Internet – the natural right to Free Speech remains just that. Rock, knife, arrow, blunderbuss, musket, rifle, machine gun, mini-gun, rockets, jets – the natural right of self-defense remains the same. Telescope, binoculars, sound amplifier, secret radio / bugs, cameras, x-ray – the natural right to be safe and secure in one’s home and papers remains just that.
I just don’t understand why politicians believe that because a new technology appears, or an enhancement to an old one comes about, that they have to be all aflutter “WE MUST CONTROL AND REGULATE IT!!!”. Simply, look at what is new and then go back to the same principles and go “oh, yeah”. But some people just believe that Govt HAS to do something about everything!
Rep. Latha Mangipudi, D-Nashua, said the growing interest of businesses such as Amazon to use small drones to deliver packages or photograph commercial property make this an ideal topic for lawmakers to tackle. “Drones are here to stay,” Mangipudi said. “To say we aren’t going to address it, we are giving up the desire to regulate this technology.”
Oh please – WHY do you have to be desirous of regulating anything – is it that old pull of being the school hall monitor coming forward? Frankly, I can’t EVER see that statement being true – I don’t think that there is any factor in life that a Democrat doesn’t have the urge to tell someone you can’t do this or you can only do it this way. They just don’t seem to have the ability to leave people alone. Now, if they only were to regulate Government with the same gusto they put to regulate companies and people, I’d be OK with that. I don’t HAVE to do business with a company and I can take them to court; fighting the Leviathan is almost impossible for the average Joe:
Under the bill (HB 1620), government must first obtain a search warrant to use a drone to gather evidence to be used in court, unless it has reasonable suspicion that non-warrant action is needed to prevent “imminent harm to life or serious damage to property.” All government drones would be limited to a 48-hour period, and within a day, it shall report in writing the use of any drones to the attorney general’s office. State prosecutors must annually post these requests on their website. Within one day of the operation, all information not directly related to any target for the drone use shall be destroyed, the bill states.
Given the spying that our own government has been doing us (e.g., NSA, DEA, FBI, other law enforcement, et al), I still wonder if this should be or will be sufficient. Can we Trust that what is written will actually be done? I should also take a look at it – WHAT information is being collected, how will it be stored, and what would be reported. However, at least the concern is there – for now.
But here is the kick in the teeth for “that next step”:
The government and private people can use drones if they have previous consent of each person affected by them. Kurk lowered the penalties for violating the restrictions on drones from a felony that could carry up to seven years in prison to a misdemeanor with up to a year in jail only for those working for government. Private individual violators would be subject to a fine under Kurk’s revised bill.
Right – if there is a crowd of a 100 or so at any kind of event, HOW would it be possible to get a signed consent form from absolutely every person? Really, how is using a drone to capture a crowd shot any different than using a high boom mounted camera that can rotate (other then it can go higher and capture more point of views)? Are broadcasters required to get consent forms that for a “fly by wire” camera like those used at NFL cameras and a lot of other sports events?
And then there is this:
A member of the panel, Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, R-Manchester, said the media should get no special privileges to use drones in this bill. “I don’t think the press deserves any special treatment. They should operate under the same rules as everyone else,” Vaillancourt said. As for enforcement, Vaillancourt said there may be unintended abuses of this bill in early stages should it become law.
No, I don’t think that media should have a special exemption either – but I think these “no fun guys & gals” are rather Luddite in outlook. Yes, they are being cautious but aren’t running down ALL of the unintended consequences. For instance, I would love to be able to fly a quad tomorrow at the 223 rally being held at the State House in Concord at noon to 2pm. Frankly, being able to have one camera focused on a speaker with a Parrot giving other views of that same speaker and showing the crowd reactions – that would be that next step that most bloggers haven’t thought of but would fit right into our wheelhouse.
However, I can tell you one – this bill effectively, if one is limited by the exact words of these legislators, completely rules out the use drones (like the Parrott shown above) for that purpose. And it will kill the use by folks who see it as just another hobby or an expensive toy. Imagine, the use of a toy level version, already available at minimal costs with just a recording camera, could make a pre-teen a convicted jailbird.
I believe that would be considered a desired effect from this accounting. That would be a great step, wouldn’t it?
