Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 275

It doesn't matter. You can never legally shoot down a drone

I have an RC model i can fly around my kitchen. The FAA doesn't give a lick whether I crash it into the couch, the kids shoot it down with water pistols, or the dog chomps it right out of the air.

But also, that's how trespass law commonly works. [...] Once I encounter you on my property and tell you to leave, if you resist I can execute a citizen's arrest for trespassing.

That is how trespassing is applied to PEOPLE. Objects are more complicated.

Let's say you aren't home for the afternoon... and then I
- park a bicycle on your front lawn and then leave.
- park a car on your front lawn and then leave.
- crash a kite into your yard, and then leave.

These are also all trespasses.

And in general the law copes with all of these quite well; albeit differently from how it copes with with people. IF you know whose it is you can write them a letter asking them to remove it; and if they don't you can press charges for trespass, and also sue them for any costs associated with having it removed.

In the case of a vehicle in particular, because its large, heavy, usually valuable, and registered to someone this is always possible; and you can also call the police and have the vehicle towed; or even just call the towing company directly -- as this is common enough; they can escalate it to the police if they need to.

In principle you can call the police and have the bike and kite removed as well and the owner can then claim it from them, but in practice as the dollar value of the property goes down the police become less interested, and it becomes more permissible to just dispose of it. (But the property never actually becomes yours unless a court awards it to you, so if the original owner comes looking for it can become nasty if you disposed of something valuable that they left on your property.

Now drones are a bit more unique, because its still trespass; and the property owners, in principle have the right to collect the object on the property, and they can then call the police to turn it in and file a report that they want to press charges against the owner for tresspass, etc. Consider someone playing with an RC car on your property for example, but standing on the other side of the property line -- or perhaps the RC car was programmed like a drone (relying on cameras, gps, programmed routes etc so the operator could be completely out of site / far away.

You would absolutely be in your rights to catch the RC car, turn it in, call the police, and press charge for trespass if the owners show up to claim it.

While the property owner cannot simply destroy the car; if the car were damaged in the process of seizing it, I would expect the courts to side with the trespassee over liability for any damage caused incidental to recovering it.

However, aircraft drones by their nature are much harder to collect, and they can 'remove themselves from your property' without the owner having to physically show up to collect them. They are also noisy. They are usually equipped with cameras and other surveillance equipment so instead of being merely a passive object 'left' on your property; they are actively violating the owners property to much greater degree. That should not be allowed to occur with impunity.

I'm not sure what the solution here really is. In the absence of an obvious operator to complain to, by shooting it down, the property owner has, *in my opinion* taken a reasonable step to collect the unwanted drone on his property; so that it can be recovered and turned in to the police.

If the FAA wants a different solution then I propose clearly visible call letters and a radio identity beacon a smartphone app could read would need to be on any drone, so that I could easily call the police and report the trespass. Drone operators would need to register their drones, and report and record flight plans.

And any drone that wasn't clearly identified... would then still be fair game to take down.

Simply put you don't get to park a camera 20' over my back yard with complete impunity just because you feel like it. That would be ridiculous. The home owner has to be given SOME recourse.

Asking them to leave and a citizens arreset doesn't work for an unmanned device hovering over my back yard with no operator in sight.

Collecting it and turning it into the police IS the protocol for trespass by an object belonging to someone else. If shooting it down is the ONLY way to collect it...

I'm not really a fan of shooting them down either, but I don't see another option here.

Comment Re:Foreign? (Score 1) 135

Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist but wouldn't this be more likely to be at least sponsored domestically?

Foreign hackers could be hired by domestic US political interests. Just because the actual attack originated outside the US does not preclude the attack having been funded and ordered by some person/group in the US.

Maybe that's why Hillary Clinton has been so determined to scrub her email history from her stint as SoS. She would have been in the perfect position and had the perfect opportunity to make the necessary foreign contacts and arrangements to set something like this up.

Maybe this is part of what Julian Assange has promised for Wikileaks' "October surprise" data release.

Strat

Comment Re:The MS Merry Go Round. (Score 1) 212

Yep and I'll be advising customers to disable updates, which won't be an issue since the browser runs in a sandbox and all web pages are scanned before load.

Meanwhile all my business customers are looking at exit strategies, some looking at Apple, some looking at Linux with a Windows VM for the Windows centric software that is required. All MSFT is doing is shooting themselves in their face with this dumb shit because a desktop is not a cellphone and the shit people will put up with on a cellphone the majority will NOT put up with on a desktop. I should know as uninstalling windows 10 is frankly one of my most popular services, it even surpassed Win 8 uninstalls awhile back, its just too fucking buggy.

Comment Re:Free market (Score 1) 380

Ah, so you were deliberately picking a "bad" example. And when that's pointed out, you get all aggressive. In a free market, one could choose whether they want to import Canadian, UK, or Somalian drugs. A "free market" doesn't mean you can only buy the cheapest supplier, but that you have choice.

Learn what "choice" means, then try again. Or is that the real reason the conservatives hate a free market? "Choice" is a bad word, so any "choice" must be ended at all costs.

That there will be choices is exactly what I was pointing out. People would be free to choose Canadian or Somalian, Indonesian, Pakistani, or any other nation's pharmaceuticals. The point is that it's a pretty good bet that not all those nations' pharma regulations & standards will meet or match those in the US. As a matter of fact many drugs would be imported which are restricted or banned in the US on top of bad batches of low quality pharmaceuticals. Even with current restrictions regarding importation of pharmaceuticals, literally tons of both 'legitimate' prescription-only and 'illicit' recreational pharmaceuticals are illegally shipped by foreign suppliers to people in the US from online orders every year and results in many overdoses, poisonings from bad batches, and deaths/crippling disabilities.

There has to be restrictions on importations of pharmaceuticals because all the various national standards are not the same and neither are laws regarding banned/restricted drugs. Opening foreign online drug purchase will also throw the door open wide to recreational designer-drugs with little or no quality standards or safety testing.

Strat

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 275

It's mainly trespassing only if you're told not to do it

So you have to yell at the drone first? That's kind of pointless.

Its one thing if your hiking in a public park and wander into a part of adjoining woods that's actually private property. No fence, and there can't be a sign on every tree... so yeah now your tresspassing; but almost nobody would fault you for it; and certainly not 'criminally charge you with it', so long as you immediately left after being told.

Warned the operators then shot?

How do you warn the operators? Maybe in some cases you can see them standing there. But as often as not you cannot locate or identify the operators nevermind warn them.

I'm certainly not in favor of shooting first ask questions later, but I don't see much choice. Its unmanned, unmarked, unregistered...

She couldn't have known it wasn't transporting life-saving meds to someone or trying to find someone lost in the woods. Easy to guess it wasn't, but guessing isn't being positive.

Quite so. But we live in a world mostly without absolutes. People are imprisoned for life based on a judgement 'beyond a reasonable doubt'; so I'm pretty sure the threshold for shooting down a trespassing drone can be less than absolute certainty.

Comment Re:free choice (Score -1) 249

Yeah, they're perfectly free to go back to dire poverty and hunger if they want.

- correct, the key word in your sentence being *back*. Back is where they would have to go in order to get away from these 'horrible companies' that are giving them something they never had before - a choice of not going back, from where they came.

I guess they are making their own choices every day regardless of what you think they should do.

No one is holding a gun to their heads to force them to feed their kids and have basic shelter.

- precisely, nobody is forcing them to eat and to feed their kids. They are choosing to do so by working for the companies that are offering them these jobs. They can go *back* of-course, back from whence they came.

Comment Re:Who gives a shit (Score 1) 179

Finding her shooting is not difficult at all. As for the cute trick you pulled weaseling in the claim about wikipedia and "independent reliable sources" nothing could be further from the truth. Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source" is any source which says something approved of by Wikiproject:Feminism. Personal blog posts and tweets are reliable sources for any claim if the person making them is someone like Zoe Quinn while third party newsmedia articles are unreliable if they dispute feminists' claims.

Slashdot Top Deals

You're not Dave. Who are you?

Working...