Privacy, Drones, Councils, Fines

44

A crash landing is possibly not illegal operation.
Is it just an unexpected operation, anticipated in the description of the UAV conditions of use?

It might be interpreted that in an emergency any flying vehicle has an entitlement to land or crash where ever is convenient, and hopefully safe to do so?

Rather than try to provide a definitive answer, is the concern that the regulations and laws have yet to catch up with all aspects and possible consequences of UAV operation?

Google and other tech start ups seem to demonstrate that an absence of regulation is fundamental to their success. Digital privacy and data security concerns followed rather than preceded their rise to dominance.

Drones may be at the same cross roads. Establish operational patterns in an unregulated environment. Develop customer dependence on the technology. Would any government risk regulation to remove the accrued benefits or challenge the business models success after the fact?

Experience may support that regulation needs to come first and grant permissions based on community assessments of potential for impact? Political incompetence suggests it is a lesson not yet learnt?

1 Like
45

There is a difference however … if you don’t like the privacy implications of for example Facebook or Google, don’t use it. If you don’t like the privacy implications of drones flying all over the place, you have no control.

1 Like
46

Presently - it would appear the community is at a disadvantage. Creeping acceptance might sum up the circumstance or strategy of the proponents such as Google.

In the short term it is the prospect of a lifestyle being frequently and routinely disturbed by the random overflights of the drone that is the greater personal concern. Most of us can currently make informed choices to live next to a motor way or some where more peaceful. The community has some say in how and where these monsters are created. City living includes a degree of compromise with traffic, noise and air quality. Currently as you note drones have no boundaries, including the ability to land in your back yard unannounced!

Whether over a longer time frame the practicalities and costs of operation the technology will sustain the use of delivery drones is an unknown. Perhaps the long game for Google and others is a little different.

Is the long game about the business of becoming your sole facilitator of choice? The very channel for your every need taking a percentage of the credit involved in response and delivering directly to you. Amazon on steroids! It could be a difficult addiction to break.

47

More than likely it will, unless one lives backing onto a large open space area approved for drone flying or lives in acreage/rural land way from built up areas.

To achieve the minimum 30 m separation distance it would be impossible to fly a drone in any built up urban areas as it could be reasonably be expected that there would be person(s) within 30 metres of the drones not associated with the drones operation.

For our particular property, the nearest location which would achieve the current CASA rule would be about 850m away (note: in a park not approved for flying drones). If one is say flying their drone over our house (or other houses in the neighbourhood), an operator would not be able to see (maintain a line of sight) and adequately control (orientate and navigate) the drone from such distance. This contravenes the CASA rules and would apply to most urban areas. Secondary to this, the park and our residence is also within 5.5km of a controlled airspace (another CASA restriction).

Yes, this is one of the problems with emerging technologies. The developer of the technologies is usually one step in from of the regulators and exploits deficiencies in regulation to muscle their way in and potentially influence development of regulations. I am not sure that this is a great way to approach regulation as it generally favours those who get in first at the expense of the community as a whole (which appears to be the situation in Canberra).

A similar experience has occurred in Brisbane in relation to the Lime trial (locals will be aware of the issues with their use and how Lime pushed its operations into Brisbane before the regulatory or built environment was ready for them. Uber is another example where it knowingly operated illegally and paid fines for its driver who were caught before regulation caught up.

If I did something similar myself, I am sure that I would be hit very hard by the government. It appears that financial presence, lobbying and ‘bullying’ its way into the market take precedence over a ethical business lining up its card before launching.

Fully agree as outlined above. I would also extend it to other smaller players in the market as well that don’t have the same financial or legal powers as the giant multinationals.

3 Likes
48

For the Canberra trial, Google I recollect have an exemption from CASA and do not need to comply with the 30m rule. It would as you suggest make the trial impossible!

The drones (my interpretation of the wording on the CASA web site) also appear to be operating autonomously under the supervision of a dedicated operator up to 10km from the base. Proof of concept?

The regulations for commercial operation are different to recreational use or restricted commercial use of a drone on your own property.
There are additional requirements for commercial use including licensing and risk assessment. We are only aware of what CASA, Wing, Google choose to share.

Per the link you provided on 27th.

3 Likes
49

I’ll just leave this here …

image
image750×540 50.1 KB

One can just imagine - drones with speed detection, number plate recognition (for unreg/etc), the list potentially goes on … of course people will say “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about …”

4 Likes
50

Of course not! :roll_eyes:

1 Like
51
3 Likes
52

So we all need to become as expert as Serena Williams at smashing Tennis Balls to secure our privacy? Is that the idea the author was trying to push?

53

Maybe the UK government may need to buy the ‘book’ as Extinction Rebellion were on the BBC the other night saying that they want to stop people flying due to GHG emissions and as the airlines are owned by capitalist elites (I am not sure why the later is really relevant to their cause). They are promoting amongst themselves drone warfare at UK airports to stop air travel. They also said that 1 in 7 of us are going to die in the coming decades if they don’t stop air travel and other forms greenhouse emissions caused by elitists and their organisations (I am not sure why elitists emissions are different to that of the non-elitists) .

Maybe all the retired tennis greats may have a post professional career at their local airports?

54

We may never have had complete privacy, but the ease of surveillance today makes it more absolute and terrifying than in the worst surveillance state in history. One no longer needs to be a target to be a subject of casual mass surveillance, and yet our security apparatchiks continue to complain about minor issues such as ‘the web is going dark’ and ‘people are using encryption to communicate’!

Just great - someone else’s problem?

Leave it alone in case it explodes, or leave it alone because you might damage some Important Company’s valuable equipment?

4 Likes
55

In respect of property law is it similar to the kids ball from next door coming over the fence?

Politely if it is perceived to present a hazard, a risk or interferes in some way with your enjoyment and ability to use your property, does that permit you to deal with said drone? (In the pool, on the driveway between the school run special and front gate, in the herb garden at tea time, …)

With some risk an onboard fault or crash damage might result in a drone electrical fault and ignition source, perhaps dousing with suitable fire retardant might be prudent? Just in case! :wink:

How many of us can hang around guarding the crash site while waiting for the owner to turn up? Then there is always the mowing to catch up on, 72” cut. Now where did I leave the keys to the tractor? :blush:

2 Likes
56

It would be where the ball (or in this case drone) is owned by someone else and the owner and occupier of the land decides to refuse entry to collect the ball/item. This often leads to neighbour disputes.

My understanding is that the occupier/owner of the land where the ball (or drone) falls is obliged to return the ball (or drone) to the rightful owner…if permission to enter the property to retrieve the item is not given. Taking the ball (or drone) would be considered theft.

I beleive this is the case because if say a car crashed into your front yard and you refused access to retrieve the car, the car is not or doesn’t becomr your property. If this occurs it is likely that the car owner would take some form of legal action to gain access to retreive the car.

We had a small one in one of our gardens a year or so ago and didn’t know who the owner was…and after speaking to a family member who is in the legal sector, we placed the drone on our letter box (with a note asking that the drone does not fly over our property and its use in the neighbourhood was illegal) hoping the owner would retreive it…the next day it was gone.

2 Likes
57

Not really a consumer issue, I guess - unless they’re used against us. The bulk of casualties are generally civilians.

Attack of the drones. At once terrifying and strangely beautiful:

and the US versions:

Remarkably effective:

Cheap to deploy, expensive to counter.

3 Likes
58

… what could go wrong? …

7 Likes
59

As demonstrated it’s not a UAV?
Unless you assign some alternate species to the bloke in the shorts?

The design possibly makes it a piloted (fly by wireless) VTOL aircraft. Hope the pilot has his license up to date.

For consumers looking to try something a little more practical, Uber may soon be offering flights in Melbourne.

Comes complete with seat belt, pilot and chunder bag. Can also take off and land anywhere there is a helipad or regulated landing field.

4 Likes
60

What, no stubby-holder? Test flight over water was probably wise. He did apparently catch a fish which is proof-of-concept, I guess.

The bloke was a passenger.

Aren’t most current drones remotely piloted?

The aircraft is a drone. The same might be said of the passenger.

3 Likes
61

Drones - yes.

For CASA the issue might be the payload and whether it is still a drone according to their legal guidance, once it has a human on board. Perhaps great news for their legal advisors work load.

There is obviously a reason behind the white masked suit of the apparent pilot.

And yes, it’s a very clever low cost project, but not the first, or even second. Possibly the lowest budget though, leaving change for the fishing gear, contoured passenger seat and free in flight refreshment.

And

3 Likes
62

The Federal Govt!

A spokesperson from the Department of Infrastructure said an issues paper for the national drone review was due for release by the end of the month.

“Submissions from the public and industry will be welcome as part of the review process.”

One chance only, and surprisingly public submissions are possible.

Why?
As the world’s most advanced location for the rollout of drone deliveries, Australia is providing a regulatory model monitored by other nations — and interested companies, such as Amazon.

Perhaps Australia is a soft target and perceived to be a low cost investment when setting/changing the rules?

Two more discussion points on the ascent of the drones.

Alarming in too many ways?

First the public acknowledgement that drones are noisy. Standing back 15m or nearly the full width of a modern suburban block that’s 24dB above the Canberra 45dB background noise level.

We’d equate that to the noise from a flock of 20 yellow tailed black cockatoos moving into the pine tree about 15m from the house. While a shotgun like blast might deter both the birds and the drones, neither option is legal. While the cockatoos are part of nature, Google might like the same for their drones?

Second a comment that Google may be granted approval for exclusive use of commercial drone space.

Could the government, Casa and Google agree that it would be too dangerous to have two drones with different systems and control operating in the one area. MONOPOLY!!

Or the NDN,
National Drone Network.
One carrier, multiple delivery agents, less payload and longer delivery times if you are too far from the node, or live blind behind a hill!

Australia already has a great precedent for granting private enterprise a public monopoly. Something those in most other nations must envy. Well, with the exception of two notable and large nations with long term political leadership assured.

4 Likes
63

And then, they privatise it. :roll_eyes:

2 Likes