Looks like video was taken down, but the other one posted looks totally innocent. I could understand being pissed off if the drone was hovering in your personal space or something, but if it was anything like the other video - the path of the drone was totally not voyeristic at all.
I love how some people assume everyone is a pervert. And I agree with the other person that said this was a possible sexual assault. I didn’t see the video, but if her intent was to show him what it was like to be a victim of her perceived sexual perversion on his part, then at least in some areas I think it would fall within the definition.
I am against those mandatory Sex Offender Registries - (as they leave little room for common sense in cases where some guy has consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend - he is on there for life - and branded a predator forever) - I think it would be delicious irony for her to end up on such a list.
She is a criminal and should spend some time in jail.
I wonder how much that setup cost him? Pretty cool. There are some hiking trails I would love to get a better view of, but not sure how well it would do say 20 feet in the air above streams and such. It would be cool if they had proximity sensors so I could avoid accidentally flying into trees and such. And the idea that people would think you are interested in snooping on them is hopefully relegated to a small subset of crazy people.
While it is possible someone would do this - 99.99% of people taking pictures are not doing this. There is no reason to ban cameras or drones just because some people have vivid imaginations about what strangers want to do with their kids.
If someone is creepy - leave. What difference does it make if he has a camera or not - are you ok with someone leering at your kids?
You do realize that porn exists on the Internet - as does plenty of pictures of clothed kids. Yes there is a subset of people who like to do upskirts on women or stuff, and in some areas this activity in unlawful.
If it’s illegal - report them - if not - leave. I don’t understand the desire to confront someone that is possibly deranged.
There was nothing this guy did that was even remotely improper.
Dude seriously? Do you not see the difference between some dude several feet away taking video as opposed to someone invading me or my family’s personal space taking creepy close ups of my kids?
I absolutely want to have a discussion. Is the question “Why wouldn’t I be?”. The answer is surprisingly simple: I expect a polite modicum of privacy and space even in public places. That space not only includes a dislike for being filmed without permission, but to even be stared at for longer than the standard social mores dictate.
I honestly think that even among people lacking this, to me, completely natural instinct, knowing that others may have it shouldn’t be a surprise, that’s why I took your question as rhetorical.
Model airplanes, and what the kid was flying, is a remotely piloted vehicle.
A true drone is an unmanned air vehicle. The difference is that while you can command places for it to go and stuff to do when it gets there, active control is by an onboard computer system. Presence of a camera is irrelevant.
I do. I absolutely do. That’s why I haven’t stated any abolute, I didn’t say “every form of filming is wrong”. It was Charlie Wayne and who wrote, and I quote:
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking pictures of public places.”
Ans Snowboarder the one who is defending this statement. This is a statement that doesn’t allow for shades. That’s the point, is he willing to defend this logic to its extremes?
Just like I could ask you if you would have a problem with somebody zooming on your family with a camera from afar.
Why do you “expect” something that is not a legal right? What is the basis of your expectation?
Also, can you define “a polite modicum of privacy and space”? 40 yards? 12 inches? An acre?
Ah, so you think there is a “standard social more” for staring at people? What do you think that is? Half a second? 5 seconds? 20 minutes? Do you have a cite?
And why do we have to use your standards? Why can’t we use mine? Or anyone else’s?
It would vary on any given situation, of course, but, yeah, I would find somebody staring at me for more than several seconds at any distance reason enough to confront that person and politely ask them if they want something. I don’t find that unusual at all. I find it astonishing that you wouldn’t.
No, I’m not defending that statement. I never said I was. I’m questioning you on your statements.
And all you seem to want to do is paint a wild scenario where something nefarious happens that is somehow related to picture taking, seemingly for the purpose of backing up your POV that picture taking should not be allowed.
You say in the quoted text above: "That’s why I haven’t stated any abolute, I didn’t say “every form of filming is wrong” but you did state it as an absolute:
You offered no qualifiers at all, just a bald statement that “people shouldn’t just go around filming anybody in beaches”.
But there is no social custom, no legal right and no history of any reprieve from having your picture taken in any public space, let alone a public beach.
Fair enough. I’d like to think that “there’s nothing crazy about feeling something” is pretty much a qualifier, though. And I will still defend that it’s a perfectly natural emotion to feel, and that most people would.
When my daughter was a baby on the beach on Oahu and a mob of Japanese tourists swarmed her with cameras, I just guessed that redheaded babies were a novelty to them. Now I realize I should have strode over and commanded:
The assholes carrying rifles into Chipotle had a legal right to do that too.
Legality doesn’t mean people will quietly accept something.
I expect it would be legal for a guy to hang out in front of Chuck E. Cheese wearing nothing but a sequinned bananahammock and singing a medley of The Wiggles’ greatest hits in a breathy Marilyn Monroe voice. You ready to take up for that guy?
Now when you start in with “well, what if they are sticking the camera up your ass while they try and shove their genitals in your mouth” or something, then yeah, that’s impolite.
But dude, that isn’t what was happening here and isn’t what is happening in the vast and overwhelming majority of photos and videos taken in public places. The statement you made is legally unsupported, not a reasonable expectation based on historical use of recording devices and a completely ridiculous thing to expect based on any social custom.
As I pointed out above, everyone has a camera and everyone could be using it at any time. Businesses and municipalities film inside and out 24/7. And there is nothing wrong with that.
The paparazzi are doing nothing wrong until they are doing something wrong, eh.
It wouldn’t be legal for him to do that on Chuck E. Cheese property if they told him to leave. It would be legal for him to do that on the sidewalk. Yes, I would take defend his right to be there and do that, so long as he wasn’t breaking any laws.
Why wouldn’t you defend his right to do that?
Are you going to come up with some scenario where he commits a crime and then try and use that to justify why no one should ever sing the Wiggles in a Marilyn Monroe voice while wearing a mankini?
In general, I would say “no,” especially from a distance. One of my friend’s more well-known aerials is this one over Coney Island beach. He did his the old school way, in a helicopter. Was he a pervert? The view from that helicopter with the cameras he was using has far more resolution and detail than a little quadcopter 50" up with a wide-angle lens. Even myself, taking photos on beaches wasn’t something that crossed my mind as being weird or threatening, unless you do it in a weird or creepy manner. It’s not an unusual “warm weather” assignment if you work for a newspaper, and I remember in college hitting the beaches just for reason. (Of course, if we had images of identifiable people, we would have to approach them to get information for our captions, so that would make it less creepy. For an overall shot where not one person is in focus, that was not necessary.)
My problem with the quadcopters is safety concerns. I think they should be more regulated for that reason, but if you’re in a public space, I don’t particularly think you have any expectation to privacy.
Saying “there’s nothing crazy” is the exact opposite of a qualifier. “There is absolutely zero percent of crazy in this idea; it is 100% pure sane and is unshakeable and unchallengable” isn’t allowing for any wiggle room to find “filming anybody in beaches” acceptable. And even that last bits exclusionary: you don’t think anyone, not a single person should be filmed. You didn’t say “filming some people”, you said “filming anybody”.
You entered this debate with an absolute declaration of immutable impropriety, and now you’re backpedaling hard on it.
