dirkclod
Premium Pilot
MIssissippi Bill Introduced about UAV
- Thread starter dnthomas
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2015
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 46
- Age
- 53
There are about 4 or 5 in Georgia which look almost just like this one. I have no problem with the invasion of privacy and using it for surveillance arguments. But I'm 400' up and aimed towards the horizon, that's a lot of landowners whose permission I'd have to get because their house looks like a small block in my photo.
The bill seems almost random and capricious. It's supposedly trying to protect the privacy of people and their property by outlawing photography from a drone but nothing about taking images of the same people and property using any number of other devices, a camera, cell phone, etc. A person could be much more intrusive filming with their phone held above the top of the neighbor's back fence, or from an upstairs window, or an apartment balcony, or any number of public locations where people and property might be in the shot. It would only be illegal with a particular type of camera ( with a particularly wide angle lens by the way ) that happens to be part of a flying platform.
When I first saw this thread, I saw that another poster noted it was last year's bill. I didn't check back. I didn't realize it was re-introduced this year. Last year, I tried to call several of the committee members including Representative Morgan and was not able to speak with a single person. I am not sure who they were representing, but it was not me.
Below is a copy of an email that I had sent to all of the committee members. NO email bounced back, but I didn't get any replies to this either. Please feel free to use it to send it to or discuss with your representative.
Listen to the interview that I have linked with Representative Morgan. It is cringe-worthy.
I will be editing this to clean it up a little more update the information on FAA registration and will send it out in email, hardcopy and once again try to contact Representative Morgan verbally.
I. Introduction
House Bill 347 introduced by Representative Morgan and others intend to make unlawful the capture of an image using a “drone”. Please take a moment to read through this. It will help you make a better informed decision as you look at this bill.
II. Why was this law proposed?
It is not clear as to why this legislation was introduced, but I can speculate based on the below.
III. Why is this law is necessary?
I would be honored and happy to take off from work and drive to Jackson to demonstrate a quadcopter for you so that you could see it in action and hopefully help you make a more informed decision about this recommended law.
Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Terry R. Lowe, MD
Hattiesburg MS
Below is a copy of an email that I had sent to all of the committee members. NO email bounced back, but I didn't get any replies to this either. Please feel free to use it to send it to or discuss with your representative.
Listen to the interview that I have linked with Representative Morgan. It is cringe-worthy.
I will be editing this to clean it up a little more update the information on FAA registration and will send it out in email, hardcopy and once again try to contact Representative Morgan verbally.
I. Introduction
House Bill 347 introduced by Representative Morgan and others intend to make unlawful the capture of an image using a “drone”. Please take a moment to read through this. It will help you make a better informed decision as you look at this bill.
II. Why was this law proposed?
It is not clear as to why this legislation was introduced, but I can speculate based on the below.
- Media causes fear. http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/01/19/state-lawmaker-wants-restrict-drones/22021615/ Note the where the reporter says that the same drone that chases terrorists can be purchased at Walmart or Best Buy. Not sure if this kind of false reporting is intentional to spectacularize the topic to sell more papers or just from laziness (not researching the topic)
- FAA reports that there are more and more people flying “drones” near airports. But there are problems with that reporting. FAA List Of Reported Drone Incidents Indicates A Problem. But It's Not What You Think.
- Technophobia. Mr. Morgan's comments on this technology: http://www.newsms.fm/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ken-morgan-1-19-15.mp3.
- Souped” up with GPS.
- Video in “conspicuous” places
- Used to sneak contraband into prisons
III. Why is this law is necessary?
- Safety issues?
- FAA already restrict use of model aircraft and quadcopters near airports. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-faa-drone-model-airplane-rules-20140623-story.html
- FAA already has rules for model aircraft use http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators
- Many model aircraft have built in programming that prevent a person from taking off at an airport and limits how high the aircraft can fly based on how far away it is from the airport.
- It is already against the law to tamper with airlines and airplanes, so when a person disables his safety features of his model aircraft and flies near an airport, he is already breaking the law.
- The technology in a model aircraft or quadcopter is indeed advanced, but no more advanced than what is found in a cellular phone or an automobile. Both of these examples have GPS and most photos are made with a cellular telephone today.
- The GPS in a model aircraft is a safety feature and should not be feared. It keeps the pilot from losing control of the QuadCopter and keeps the quad at safe heights when it gets closer to restricted air space.
- Privacy issues?
- Voyeurism is already illegal and everyone has a RIGHT to privacy!
- These hobby machines have cameras, but most do not zoom in. The quadcopter is loud. It is highly unlikely that a criminal-minded pilot can get close enough to a dorm window or to a swimming pool to take an illicit photo without being heard. There is nothing stealth about these hobby machines.
- The model aircraft is NOT a good spy toy. It is loud and it must remain within radio contact of the controller. If the aircraft goes behind a tree, or behind a house, or behind a pool fence, the aircraft will lose contact with the controller and the flyer will not be able to take any sneaky videos.
- Your photo is taken every day. From the ATM machine to the traffic cameras, to security cameras. As an amateur photographer, would I be violating a person's right to privacy if they happen to be in the background frame when I take a photo at Disney World or at a high school or college football game?
- Would this proposed law prohibit ESPN from doing over-head shots with their wired (but unmanned) camera at an Ole Miss football game? Would it prevent a Hollywood movie maker from shooting aerial shots while trying to produce a movie in Mississippi?
- Would it still be legal for a person in a piloted manned airplane to snap a photo or video of the ground? Can a person on a commercial plane snap a photo of the ground while they are flying over Mississippi without being considered a criminal? If so, why would this be legal and taking a video from an unmanned craft be deemed illegal? A photo IS a photo no matter if the flight was manned or unmanned.
I would be honored and happy to take off from work and drive to Jackson to demonstrate a quadcopter for you so that you could see it in action and hopefully help you make a more informed decision about this recommended law.
Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Terry R. Lowe, MD
Hattiesburg MS
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Wife asked me about a local state office candidate today.
I researched a bit about him, He is a small local village mayor.
Here is a link that popped up on his local work in office.
I did just send the contact a question about the "OVER" 400 foot rule.
I asked should I follow the LEGAL FAA recommendations to fly under 400 foot
or
the not so legal rules to fly above 400'
looking forward to an answer as this mayor wants to move up to state level office.
got to love these guys that feel the need to save the world from ......
MCDONALD, Ohio -
Village leaders in McDonald are taking a stand against drones.
Council gave their final reading of a three read process of a drone regulation that would ban the unmanned flying machines.
According to Mayor Glenn Holmes, the village will not be banning drones, but will be monitoring their use.
“Technology is ahead of ordinance legislation. Our job is to keep the peace and safety of our residents,” said Holmes.
Holmes says those who want to use drones must be familiar with specific guidelines.
The ordinance states drones are prohibited from flying over crowds, must establish a direct line and must be flown higher than 400 feet.
The bill will go into effect sometime in December.
Drones were also banned at the Canfield Fairgrounds and Liberty Schools banned the machines during football games.
I researched a bit about him, He is a small local village mayor.
Here is a link that popped up on his local work in office.
I did just send the contact a question about the "OVER" 400 foot rule.
I asked should I follow the LEGAL FAA recommendations to fly under 400 foot
or
the not so legal rules to fly above 400'
looking forward to an answer as this mayor wants to move up to state level office.
got to love these guys that feel the need to save the world from ......
MCDONALD, Ohio -
Village leaders in McDonald are taking a stand against drones.
Council gave their final reading of a three read process of a drone regulation that would ban the unmanned flying machines.
According to Mayor Glenn Holmes, the village will not be banning drones, but will be monitoring their use.
“Technology is ahead of ordinance legislation. Our job is to keep the peace and safety of our residents,” said Holmes.
Holmes says those who want to use drones must be familiar with specific guidelines.
The ordinance states drones are prohibited from flying over crowds, must establish a direct line and must be flown higher than 400 feet.
The bill will go into effect sometime in December.
Drones were also banned at the Canfield Fairgrounds and Liberty Schools banned the machines during football games.
Representative Morgan's bill was assigned to to Mississippi House Judiciary B.
I compiled contact information for this committee and have it available for download https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35110028/House Judiciary B.pdf
As this bill will come up every year now, please be sure to email your representative and the representatives on this committee.
Thanks!!
I compiled contact information for this committee and have it available for download https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35110028/House Judiciary B.pdf
As this bill will come up every year now, please be sure to email your representative and the representatives on this committee.
Thanks!!
Last edited:
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2015
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 17
- Age
- 54
I spoke to Mr Zuber who thanked me for pointing this bill out. He said he would be surprised if it passed and said he would bird dog it and asked if I would help keep an eye out for anything I saw online about the bill
Yeah!!!! I haven't gotten anyone yet. Thanks for doing that!!!
If you look at the members of the Technology Committee who are responsible for this bill, Joel Bomgar is on that committee. He is the Founder of The Bomgar Corporation, a multi-national computer security/software company. He understands well the combination of free enterprise and technology. He and I served in the MS Air National Guard together. I emailed him yesterday and asked that he please review the bill carefully to make sure that it does not infringe on the rights of drone owner/pilots to make a living. I encourage anyone and everyone to do the same.
[email protected]
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
K from Men In Black said it best: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat..."
Basically, they're scared of those "spying drones" that they can't and most likely never will see. Once Amazon starts dropping beef jerky on their porches 5 minutes after they placed an order they'll come around.
ETA: Not a good idea to refer to good folks in the south as "hicks." I blame the media's constant sensationalizing of the topic for getting these bad bills off the ground in the first place. Thankfully the media seems to be coming around (finally), as more and more news networks add UAS to their reporter tool kit.
Last edited:
