Shared publicly  - 
Andreas Habicher's profile photoJohn Collins's profile photoBobby Coggins's profile photoOmar Sofradzija's profile photo
Anyone who can build or buy drones should use them, as long as they stay below 400ft to avoid falling under FAA
Journalists absolutely MUST use these babies ... because they are awesome!
Using specialized equipment or an accessory to discover something that the unaided human (or dog) senses could not have otherwise discovered without assistance requires a search warrant by the police. This has been asserted in two Supreme Court cases involving GPS tracking on a drug dealers vehicle (even if it was parked in a public space) and another involving an officer using an infrared thermal camera to see if someone was running grow lights for marijuana in his house.

So if a civilian journalist did it in a private space (even in the air), it is trespassing. So maybe a journalist could use it if it did not leave the airspace of public right-of-ways or spaces, but as soon as that thing goes over someone's property line, it can legally be destroyed--which is what I would do to it.

If it invades my privacy can I shoot it out of the sky?  
I assume if journalists can fly RC aircraft around people's houses, they as property owners can certainly do the same.  It takes a while to learn to fly them well at all hmm.

I think people with kids can probably be expected to tell them to keep their radio controlled toys flying below 400 feet, in effect.  Because they will say not to fly them up so high or far that they cannot see them anymore.

I would hate to be the insurance carrier for these paparazzi's airborne critters.
Tea Nix
No, Way too much in invasioncy of privacy
Only if the people being invaded can use them as target practice....
Being born and raised here, I would highly recommend not using those in Texas.
Most journalists I know can barely use a computer and they hate every minute of it. But maybe the drones can be used by the college interns for a side project to give the illusion that the journalistic organization is "innovative."
Oh, you were thinking about paparazzi. I was thinking about demonstrations, wildfires, plane crash sites and other events that invite airborne view.
I would love to have a drone to use to take photos and video at local festivals and perhaps auto accidents and fire scenes in the local area.
+Andreas Habicher that's really the question. I can see good uses of drones when it comes to disasters, crashes etc. but I can also see where they would go wrong. Hopefully the people that use them will figure out what's right and what's wrong.
I worry that people and volunteer organizations will stop rescuing people when someone is in distress, and just send a drone snap a photo to be bought by Rupert Murdoch's NY Post.
+John Collins The same goes for any form of photography. Tele-Zooms are around a while. They didn't stop rescuing people yet.
The last use of a Tele-Zoom lens I read about in the press was not entirely gallant. It was spoken about at length in the media after being  used by a few entities for a purpose that was short-sighted and crass. They went out of their way to abuse someone who did not need their attention at all.  Look how many people are attacked these days just to create a video clip with a phone cam that can be posted on YouTube.  Clearly, that shows at least some of the time the devices deflect some people from what they should be doing; not that cameras are bad — just some people's judgment.
Here is an example of how the UAV Hobby is progressing....average people can fly these things and see what the craft is seeing in real time via FPV Googles: FPV - revo tuning session  search Youtue for FPV and see what is going on in this field. 

*edit* And this person claims to have sent their craft to 12,000 feet Z2 FPV to 12,000 feet
Add a comment...