Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 457

You aren't allowed to slash all 4 tires to ensure it's immobile until you can call a tow truck to haul it away.

You can take its license plate down, record its VIN, take a few pics, etc. Also, the car isn't going to just up and leave unless the owner shows up. There is no need to 'immobilize' the car.

Now, 10 years from now when some kids hack an empty uber and set it to driving around in circles a farmers fields, you think it won't be stopped with force?

Perhaps throwing small rocks at the drone, or turning a hose on it would be appropriate. Something to indicate it's unwanted, but causes little to no direct damage (though may cause a crash, which would cause more damage).

So... birdshot a 30-50' is ok then?

The proper legal remedy is to follow it "home" and sue the owner.

How does that work? It moves faster than you, and isn't limited to passable terrain, fences, creeks, rivers, buildings...

Comment Re:Misleading (Score 3, Insightful) 101

Tesla's Autopilot functions at almost exactly the same level as an aircraft autopilot.

Except that most of the time an aircraft on autopilot is a mile or two from ANYTHING. Including the ground. And the parts of a flight where a plane is expected to be nearer to anything the pilot is paying a LOT more attention.

Mid-flight on a long haul, the pilot has to be there, and he has to be awake, but he can be filling out paperwork, reading aircraft manuals, checking maps, etc.

That's NOTHING like what a tesla driver can ever do. A tesla driver needs to be paying attention the same way a pilot does during an automated landing ... the ENTIRE trip. Not only is that completely different from an aircraft pilot, its also an unreasonable / unrealistic expectation.

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 457

A drone can't trespass.

The drone isn't trespassing. The owner of the drone is trespassing. But you can't apprehend or warn someone that isn't there, but you can seize the property and turn it into police.

You must use appropriate care, or you are liable.

Agreed. What then is the appropriate care to bring down an unmanned unattended object hovering over your property out of arms reach?

Comment Re: good luck with that one... (Score 1) 172

It remains the case that the law was brought down because of arguments about incompatibility with the current EU rules. Had those EU rules not applied, there would have been no basis for the issues raised in the judicial review. The legal technicalities of the judicial review process don't change that fundamental situation, nor does the lack (so far) of a CJEU reference.

Also yes, lots of other Member States have private copying exceptions, but most of them caved to industry pressure and introduced some sort of levy on their citizens in return. Those levies have been widely criticised, both for increasing prices of media and devices even where they would not subsequently be used for private copying purposes and for the manner in which the proceeds of those levies were distributed. If you read the EU resolution you linked yourself, you'll find it's extremely careful about the wording around that exception and it most certainly does not imply that the UK's private copying exception would be reinstated on the original basis or that similar levies should not be applied in the UK.

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 457

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:Case Backwards (Score 1) 457

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:Absurd fear (Score 1) 98

Apple has always included plenty of ports in the pro models, and they will continue to do so...

LMAO. No. I have a pro. 2012 and 2015. It does not have 'plenty of ports'. It has just BARELY enough.

Both only have 2 USB ports? I need a hub just to use an external keyboard+mouse+external hard drive on a "pro device".

And no ethernet port on the 2015? idiotic for a pro device.So now i get to pay for a thunderbolt to ethernet dongle. Thanks apple.

At least it has hdmi instead of a useless 'mini-displayport' like the 2012 unit though.

There's nothing wrong or odd about having multiple lines of product that serve the needs of different users.

Agreed. Where is there pro device line? Apple should really make one.

All I see is a consumer macbook, a consumer macbook air, and a more expensive consumer macbook air that they call "pro".

A pro device would be a touch thicker (use the space for battery!), have a proper ethernet port, upgradeable/replaceable RAM and storage. Oh, and physical function keys (i think i read they were replacing those with a stupid touch UI). And it wouldn't ever make you choose between charging the device and attaching a peripheral.

99% of the people using them do not need the ports they are taking out enough that it matters they are gone.

Do you know many people that own a macbook pro that don't have a usb hub or dongle in their bag? for my old one i had had minidisplayport to hdmi + usb hub + usb to serial (yay cisco), mini-displayport to vga (because in 2012 vga projectors were still far more common than anything else).

For my current one I need a thunderbolt to ethernet, plus a usb hub, plus usb to serial. Oh, and since it has no internal dvd I have an external one. (I don't use it much, and I'm happy the internal space is being used for battery instead of a drive... but I still need it from time to time so its another dongle.

Now I'm willing to concede that with respect to the usb to serial; I might be in the one percent for that one; and I'm not even too irate about that one. And the DVD is pretty situational too. But even so I don't actually know anybody who doesn't have at least a hub and at least one dongle in their bag. So I call BS on 99% being happy with the ports it comes with ... when 100% of the actual professionals I know carry around more than one adapter for something and/or a usb hub.

I guess if your idea of a professional is a hipster blogger working out of a starbucks then you don't need any adapters.

Comment Re:AV only helps if you are bad (Score 1) 193

Sure, but that trust only extends as far as whoever implemented those security measures and signed those binaries. We live in an era when your own OS may well be spying on you, your new laptop may be shipped with vendor-installed spyware right out of the factory, your new PC's CPU almost certainly has secondary functionality built-in that you can't examine or control, any of those things potentially lead to not just privacy but also system control vulnerabilities, and that's just the threats your chosen commercial partners openly-ish advertise before you get into criminals or state security services physically modifying something between the manufacturer's facility and yours.

Comment Re:Phase 2 testing (Score 1) 173

Cool. Now do the same thing 6 more times, without resurfacing.

If he can do it for two months straight around the clock without snapping, my money would be on him doing two years too if he had to/wanted to. Elizabeth Fritzl did 24 years trapped in a cell in the basement, eventually no matter how bad the situation is it eventually just is. Same goes for people with severe disabilities and such, if I ended up in a wheelchair I'd get very depressed right away. But if I live through that first phase I don't see myself saying I've lived a year in a wheelchair but a year and a day is too much. I'd either have found a reason to live - or not - long before that.

Comment Re:Ignorance shouldn't be an excuse. (Score 1) 38

claim ignorance

Security is mostly / always at the cost of convenience, and often costs money budgets don't have (until it is too late).

I know that in our organization, security is always an afterthought, even though we in IT try to make it a priority. Decisions made by people who are ignorant are almost always wrong (broken clocks being right twice a day), because they are almost always based on convenience over security.

And when the inevitable security problems come up, they expect IT to fix them, without compromising all their stupid decisions along the way.

When ever someone makes a REALLY stupid suggestion (easily guessed passwords), I try to put it into terms they can understand ... "Why not set everyone's password to the exact same thing, that way when someone forgets their password, their neighbor can tell it to them! CONVENIENT!!!"

Comment Re: Hardly news.. (Score 1) 86

One race instills systematic impediments that create an uneven playing field holding back other races from equitably participating in the riches of our society. This is just wrong!

You mean like the SF quarterback who is among the %01, raised by white parents when his black parents abandoned him, complaining about being "oppressed"?

IF there are systemic impediments that create an uneven playing field, it is by those who keep insisting that there are impediments even in the face of all the proof in the world that such things do not exist, because the belief is what is holding these people back.

Or, think of it this way, the whole DNC "you can't make it because rich white people are keeping you down and you need our (DNC) help" is patently offensive and racist. Partly because it is run by "rich white people" telling poor black people they need rich white people's help. If that isn't fucking racist, I don't know what is.

Comment Re: Hardly news.. (Score 0) 86

Tribalism is based on Evolutionary group behavior. Humans cannot really survive well as individuals in an evolutionary setting.

You cannot nullify millions of years of evolution by simply willing it away. So, while you "struggle to understand", I don't struggle to understand, because it is easy to understand. It isn't an "irrational emotional response", it is bred into us, and is pure instinct, just like breading itself is.

The other option to this is that we are not millions of years old evolutionary creatures, but are a creation of a deity, much much younger. And as a creation, then we must argue over which creation story is correct, and thus begins the "tribalism" that occurs over such arguments.

Personally, I like to think that tribalism is neither good nor bad, but how things "are". My tribe (aka Family) exists, my choice of friends (alliances) extends my tribe. I get along with some other tribes, and I don't get along with some other tribes. It isn't binary, but often appears that way.

My particular view is also one of the reasons why I am a Libertarian. Because, as long as your tribe leaves my tribe alone, to live as we see fit, and I do the same, I really don't care what god you believe in, what OS you use, what race you are. The problem are those people who DO care what others believe, and do ... and demand that I follow their rules.

Slashdot Top Deals

Take an astronaut to launch.