
Aerial photography ban proposed for all but government - uptown
http://agbeat.com/business-news/aerial-photography-ban-proposed-for-all-but-government/
======
ctdonath
No.

Government should never get a pass on a prohibition just because it's the
government. Au contraire: save for very narrow instances (ex.: nuclear
weapons) handled with intense care and oversight, government agents should be
subject to any and all restrictions inflicted upon the populace at large.
People have rights and delegate them to government as granted powers, not the
other way around.

~~~
ihsw
You don't seem to realize how the American government works.

In all levels, from local to state to federal, their constituency consists
exclusively of special interest groups whom represent businesses at large.

Consumers are left in the cold with regards to influencing policy since they
are disorganized and (more importantly) they lack the political and economic
will to exercise control over their government.

Consumers rarely (if ever) contribute to campaigns, lobby, or propose
legislation themselves.

If you do understand it then your proposal is simply a pipe dream since this
iron shield is impenetrable to individual citizenry.

~~~
davidw
> If you do understand it then your proposal is simply a pipe dream since this
> iron shield is impenetrable to individual citizenry.

This kind of attitude is... deep breath... calm down...

Well, it's bullshit, plain and simple.

I played a minor part in passing a law in Italy:

[http://www.governo.it/Notizie/Presidenza/dettaglio.asp?d=690...](http://www.governo.it/Notizie/Presidenza/dettaglio.asp?d=69038)

And I don't know if you've noticed over the past few days, but Italy is not
exactly an easy place to get things done, with a smoothly functioning
political system. _Especially_ not for a foreigner with no connections and
without oodles of money to spend on the issue.

By comparison, it's far easier for people to get involved in politics in the
US if they want to _work_ at it.

This sort of self-defeating "woe is us" attitude is garbage that will get you
nowhere. If you're willing to do more than sit around carping online, there
are plenty of ways of getting involved and making a difference.

~~~
rayiner
Bullshit is right. People yammmer on and on about corporate this and bought
that, but clearly have never tried to influence legislation.

You can influence legislation yourself easily. Hang out at the state
legislature building with a well-researched, snappy proposal, and hang around
trying to talk to legislators or their chief of staff. Its best if you have a
list of people who support your proposal. You will get heard. You might not
win, but odds are that if you don't it'll not be because some big company
stuffed some campaign fund with a big check, but because they simply called up
a legislator and said: "this will cost us jobs."

People campaigning for environmental laws somehow manage to have a lot of
influence, yet they have none of the bargaining advantages of the tech
industry. They don't have a ton of money like the tech industry, and half of
politicians and voters have an intrinsic distrust of environmentalists because
they think it's God's will to pillage the earth's resources. Yet somehow we
continue to make progress on environmental issues.

The system isn't ideal, but it's isn't broken. Rather, techies are lazy,
entitled, and arrogant. The very thought that their beliefs aren't universal,
that legislators don't consider their opinions plated in gold sends them into
a tizzy. The very idea that they may have to get down into the muck and engage
in the political process with everyone else sounds of being beneath them.

------
Anechoic
Is Kurk actively trying to stop all real estate and building development
activity in his state?

One of the first things that often happens when someone is planing a public or
private development is that developer/architect/engineer commissions an aerial
photo of the project area. It allows for more up-to-date photography of that
specific (and surrounding) area than may be available from USGS or the state's
GIS office and can help to identify and address any number of environmental
concerns that come up in the permitting process.

Yeah, government users are unaffected, but I have a box and multiple DVD's
full of aerial photography commissioned by private clients. Development would
have been constrained on those projects without those photos.

~~~
wallawe
Oh, but you can purchase an expensive license... from the government

------
scarmig
If I'm reading this right... it actually bans Google Maps while explicitly
acknowledging the feds' right to use whatever drones they want?

We need better small government advocates.

~~~
sbhere
How about just smaller government?

~~~
greenrice
How about just more efficient government with better representation of the
populance?

~~~
oleganza
How about before talking about the size of the government, proving when and
how using threat of murder is moral? Because government has "legal" and real
power to kill you if you don't do what you are told. If you cannot prove it as
good as some math theorem, then why don't you find some other ways to solve
problems before killing people? Why not being able to find a peaceful solution
justifies murderous solutions? Do you threaten others with death to believe
you when you cannot prove your point peacefully and reasonably?

~~~
baddox
Don't hold your breath for a "proof" involving morality.

~~~
oleganza
I don't argue for use of violence and therefore I don't need to provide any
justification for it. It's people who suggest laws and regulations as
solutions need to prove why they can do that. Without a proof, it's just
bullying and mob rule.

Why is burden of proof is not on me? Because I don't stop the discussion by
taking out a gun. If you don't agree with me you are always able to go away,
or tell everybody to not talk to me because I'm not nice to others. No one
kills anyone, everybody is free to agree to disagree. But whenever somebody
gets angry that I disagree and takes out weapons, then it's up to him to
explain why he is doing that.

~~~
colanderman
_Why is burden of proof is not on me?_

Because you're arguing that representatives of the government's executive
branch should not be able to use force to defend themselves when threatened
with force. That violates the golden rule, which, being core to many
moralities, places the burden of proof on you.

~~~
oleganza
Don't you think, the representatives and their supporters need to justify
their use of violence first? If not, then I can also end this discussion by
killing you without justification.

Example 1. Everyone thinks the Earth is flat, but I don't think so. Since
everyone's senses indicate that it is flat and my idea is not self-evident, it
is me who must provide sensual evidence. E.g. by showing that the horizon is
limited and ships go under.

Example 2. Many people think the god exists, but senses do not provide any
common (objective) perception. More than that, if you show them that by
behaving badly you don't get mysteriously evaporated, it's now their job to
prove how and why the god exists.

In other words, me and other people see a lot of evidence that some people
kill other people, but we do not see a solid reason why some have a right to
do so, while others do not. Then someone comes and says "it is democracy".
Very well, but it is very far from being satisfactory answer and it has even
more moral questions. E.g. how sudden increase of 50% audience by 1 person
reverts their morality? Or what happens if older voters died and new were
born? What are the "borders" within which you can use democracy, but outside -
it's another jurisdiction? All of this stuff is 100% imaginary and outside of
realm of sensual evidence. So it's your job to prove that these imaginary
concepts have any ground. Quarks are imaginary, we cannot feel them directly
or indirectly. So it's up to physicists to prove to anyone else that this
imaginary model is useful at organizing all their real sensual knowledge in a
coherent manner. And if they derive from quark theory that they can kill
people - they have to prove it first.

~~~
colanderman
_Don't you think, the representatives and their supporters need to justify
their use of violence first? If not, then I can also end this discussion by
killing you without justification._

No you can't, because I have not acted violently against you.

The state _will not_ act violently toward a citizen in excess of the violence
that citizen has displayed toward it: the government will _not_ kill you
unless you resist with deadly force its lesser efforts at punishment.

You must also keep in mind that violence need not be physical. (If you ignore
non-physical violence; e.g. pollution or speeding or libel; you will have a
very undesirable society in which to live.) Laws (purportedly; actuality may
be less ideal) exist to prevent what society at large has deemed to be some
form of violent intrusion on their safety/privacy/liberty/etc. Therefore, if
you have broken a (just) law against some person, you have committed some form
of violence against them, and violence (generally in the form of moving you
from your home to a prison cell) is justified in their defense.

------
blhack
There is absolutely no chance that this bill will pass.

Crazy bills championed by people that either don't understand them, or are
just posturing are semi-common. Just because it has been proposed, doesn't
mean _anything_.

~~~
ctdonath
Alas, enough of them pass with serious enough consequences that we _do_ have
to watch for and actively oppose them. Prime example is NY's recent passage of
the "SAFE Act".

~~~
jrockway
What's the problem with the SAFE Act? The provision where mental health
providers have to become informants?

~~~
ctdonath
The provision making hundreds of thousands of cooperative upstanding law-
abiding citizens into enemies of the state for owning common devices less
dangerous than stairs.

------
nekojima
When we fly over New Hampshire in a commercial plane, does this mean the
captain or flight attendants will be obligated to tell us not to take photos
of the state from the air, if any buildings are visible or identifiable as
buildings based on other landmarks? Unbelievably this has been possible for
well over a century (including use of air ships), only now has it become an
issue for excessive regulation.

~~~
jevinskie
Are roads not man made objects? Those are visible from very high altitudes!

------
dmckeon
_This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms
identifiable as human beings or man-made objects._

Seems like a poor distinction to me - "identifiable" by what? A human eyeball,
infra-red, multi-spectral analysis?

This would allow imaging of forests, fields, and streams, but not man-made
objects like roads, bridges, dams, or the more navigable waters (might contain
humans).

Perhaps the sponsor expects image-creators to blur out anything that might be
a human or man-made object?

How would this affect the usage of self-driving cars? You could image a deer
crossing the road, but not a human? (Note the prohibition is on image
creation, not publication.)

~~~
n3rdy
> This would allow imaging of forests, fields, and streams, but not man-made
> objects like roads, bridges, dams, or the more navigable waters (might
> contain humans).

I wonder how much of a stretch it would be to imagine some court ruling that
trees could be considered man-made objects if they were planted by humans.

~~~
glesica
Or, more sinister, crops and other agricultural lands. Which would prevent
monitoring by environmental groups for run-off control and such.

~~~
protomyth
well if you want to think the worst in people...

I would say this law would be a pain for farmers and ranchers that are taking
the next steps in technology. Plus architects would get caught eventually.

------
gojomo
Sociologist Max Weber in 1919 advanced the idea that the state is an entity
which claims for itself a monopoly on the legitimatized use of violence.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence>

A 21st-century Weber might instead identify the state as the entity claiming a
monopoly on _surveillance_.

~~~
oleganza
The problem is not in surveillance. The problem is: "we will kill you if you
decline to go to jail for doing aerial photography". That's what the law says.
The surveillance is secondary.

~~~
mimiflynn
Kill? I read that it would be a Class A Misdemeanor.

~~~
kevingadd
If you reject their attempts to assert control over the path and processing of
photons, eventually they will attempt to incarcerate you. They will do this
with increasing degrees of force if you continue to resist. Eventually this
resistance is classified as enough of a 'threat' to justify a police officer
accidentally discharging half a clip into your back while you're on the
ground. In self defense, of course. At least if you live in Oakland...

~~~
n3rdy
I am loving the high concentration of anarchists in this thread, HN needs more
anarchists. An uncaged mind thinks bigger than a caged one.

------
webwanderings
The most depressing documentary of all time I recently watched on public
television: Rise of the Drones. And to top it off, the end credit suggested
that the major funding of this program was provided by Lockheed Martin!

You'd be better off not watching.

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-
drones.htm...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html)

~~~
n3rdy
> You'd be better off not watching.

Ignoring a problem usually doesn't make it less of a problem.

~~~
webwanderings
Well you're right, but we can only watch. The world is slipping out of the
hand with this technology and we can already tell where it is heading. So this
isn't really a "problem" anymore, as much as it is a reality.

~~~
ckvamme
Slipping out of hand?? Only watch?? No. Get involved, this tech isn't
proprietary, it's all been opensourced, power to the people.

------
btbuildem
So, let me get this straight: they're proposing to prohibit anyone who may
actually contribute something valuable to society from using the technology,
but give full license to those pretty much guaranteed to do evil with it?

~~~
squozzer
This sort of legal logic-twisting is more common than we like to admit. 1)
Take a topic that has some legal buzz. 2) Draft a law that, on the surface,
seems to do something about it while actually doing nothing or the opposite of
what it seemed to intend. 3) Sit back and collect the cheers of the ignorant
proles. e.g. Gun Owner's Protection Act of 1986, PATRIOT Act, ad nauseum.

------
DennisP
David Brin's _Transparent Society_ gets more relevant every day.

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Transparent-Society-Technology-
Bet...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Transparent-Society-Technology-
Between/dp/0738201448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361909242&sr=8-1&keywords=transparent+society)

~~~
martinced
Yeah.

And thankfully there's lots of hope in that (semi-old) David Brin essay.
Technology is a multi-faceted dice and although the government is _very_
powerful and lobbyist manage to get ever more restrictive laws passed each
day, they simply cannot stop technological progress.

"Police and thieves in the streets, scaring the nation with their guns and
ammunitions" _are_ getting filmed, photographed and arrested thanks to
technology (even if the government desperately tries to ban that).

There's hope and David Brin saw it a long time ago.

------
HeyLaughingBoy
Well there goes another business if this passes.

I live on a small farm in (obviously) a rural area. There are people whose
business model consists of coming to the front door to show you a small aerial
photo of your house and asking if you want to buy the framed 18"x30" version.

Not my cup of tea, but has it even begun to cross the minds of legislators in
the mostly rural state of New Hampshire that there are many legitimate
businesses that need to do aerial photography?

Just when you thought you'd finally seen the bottom of the stupidity cup, you
find there's still more to go!

~~~
quink
My high school, when I went there a decade ago, had an giant aerial photograph
right at the reception.

Crazy to think that it would be banned, but the map right next to that - which
has an outline of every building and labels - wouldn't be. Which in turn makes
me wonder whether this will give reason to ban maps of school campuses too.
After all, school shootings happen so the solution could be to ban maps of
schools :|

------
j_s
Clearly it's time for hobbyists to switch from making drones to making anti-
drone rockets!

~~~
protomyth
uhm....

making drone - probable talk with FAA

making anti-drone rocket - probable vigorous discussion with FAA, SWAT, ATF,
DoD, and FBI with vacation in Caribbean

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Define the difference between an anti-drone rocket and a drone that oh whoops,
sorry lost control there, is that your drone I crashed into ?

~~~
protomyth
intended versus unintended consequences and which Federal agency has authority

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Sorry, I meant intentionally crashing drone into drone - let's call it hunter
killer drones. My ardu-pilot drone swarm can take out your million buck drone
over the parts of the city I dont want you looking at. Probably.

Saving that I will just laser your optics. I think disrupting technologies are
orders of magnitude cheaper and more mobile than any government spec
surveillance technology.

~~~
protomyth
Well, you start with the FAA and NTSB then quickly get some serious
involvement by the FBI (if it was and DoD or Border Patrol you are hosed). If
it was the local cops drone, expect a visit from SWAT.

Arming any type of aircraft is going to get you sent away for a very long time
and lasers are a particular no-no with the FAA. We'll skip the basic "willful
destruction of government property" and move right up into all the laws based
on military grade weapons and terrorism.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Most police helicopters have their cameras disrupted with handheld laser
pointers on a regular basis - almost no kid nicking cars these days will be
without one. Watch a Police Camera Action style show for some tips.

Now as for the poli e response - the day kids nicking cars are arrested for
terrorism by the FBI is the day I get out my old placards and march on
parliament. The old saw about "when they came for me there was no one left to
speak out" does hold resonance.

As to the arming issues - you are not arming an aircraft, just flying it into
another unmanned vehicle. To stop it monitoring my illicit drug factories. I
suspect most people who proactively want to brim down police drones have
activities that will get longer jail terms than drone destruction.

Overall, I stand by my contention that when its ten fold cheaper to attack a
drone than build a drone, airspace is about to get very contested - FAA
operates on consent of all concerned - when the airspace can be violated for a
few hundred bucks, things will change. Maybe not for the better.

I am not saying this is good, just likely. Then again maybe our cities will be
peaceful and policing by consent will be the order of the day.

Edit: tidying up

------
jacobmarble
I propose a law to ban unlicensed aerial photography by the government.
Government entities shall announce, in public record, any flight intended to
collect aerial photographs, before such flight is undertaken. The reason for
the flight shall be declared in simple English, and all photographs shall
become part of the public record.

I trust (and know) the people in my neighborhood more than I trust the
Ministry of Truth.

------
tokenadult
From the article, "Neal Kurk (R), member of the New Hampshire House of
Representatives since 1986 has recently sponsored HB 619-FN to make aerial
photography illegal in their state, which many are considering a look into the
future."

This is a state-level proposal in one of the smallest states in the United
States. All of the comments about the "federal" or "United States" government
in this thread apparently aren't based on reading the fine article. Moreover,
the text of the proposed bill, "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if
such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior
of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or
with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported
by the ground. This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not
reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects. In this
paragraph, 'dwelling' means any building, structure, or portion thereof which
is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one
or more individuals," could reasonably be construed as a privacy protection.
(That's the context I would expect from New Hampshire, where the state motto
is "Live free or die.") The first person quoted as a specific opponent of the
bill in this article (which is more balanced than the comments in this thread)
is a real estate photographer. Well, yeah, maybe I as an individual don't want
multiple real estate agencies flying planes over my house to take photos,
possibly when I am in my yard in view of airplanes and helicopters. Reasonable
minds could take either side of this bill, but don't react to the link-bait
headline, but to the actual text of the bill and its context among current
business practice and other legislation.

From the website's description of itself:

"About us & our story

"AGBeat is Business news, insights, tools, and inspiration for small business
owners and professionals. AGBeat condenses news information on technology,
business, small and medium business, NPO’s, social media, startups, real
estate, economics and more, so you don’t have to.

"In 2007, AGBeat began as Agent/Genius (AG) . Fed up and disgusted with the
pay to play real estate space, we decided to radically change the face of news
publishing by giving industry professionals a legitimate voice.

"Successful to date in its fundamental mission, AG is a multi-award winning
publication and its columnists and editors are named as some of the most
influential in real estate, business, and in technology. AG is known for
ripping the lid off of hot new technologies, startups, and mashups- everyone
knows that if it’s on AG, it’s relevant.

"In late 2009, AG took on News and Business News, seeking to disrupt a drab
and boring, and mostly pay to play business publishing space and continues to
bring honest coverage and insight to an eager audience. Because of AG’s
footprint within the tech startup space and in the business category, we
needed a way to expand our publication, and in 2011, we changed our masthead
to AGBeat, launching a brand around Agent/Genius."

<http://agbeat.com/about/>

Oh, so the link-bait headline comes from a group of real estate agents who
want to spread alarm at their business actually being subjected to the rule of
law. What a surprise.

~~~
nostromo
Respectfully, I don't see how it's link bait, it's a very straight-forward and
factual headline.

The ad hominem argument also isn't persuasive; judge the legislation based on
your ethical compass, not on dislike for a specific profession.

~~~
ghayes
What the article is missing, clearly, is the phrase "in New Hampshire" or "in
one US state."

~~~
diggan
First sentence in article: "In New Hampshire, an aerial photography ban has
raised more questions than answer as fears regarding drones heat up - measured
reaction or overreaction?"

------
lifeisstillgood
Again, we need laws that stipulate three new Techno-age rights

* right to awareness of surveillance Surveillance is just sooo pervasive that trying to ban it is useless. Just require that any time anyone is able to identify or track an individual through video, data mining, or any other process, they are required to publish this within $time period - publish the date time location means and data used, along with the identifying data.

* ?

* ?

~~~
PotatoEngineer
That first one reduces your privacy even further: not only does Group A track
you, but now everyone knows that Group A is tracking you, allowing Group B to
ask Group A for data on you.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
But now I know group b is tracking me too. Basically we have lost our privacy
and we need some way of knowing who has what on us. Total transparency is the
only answer - otherwise people can track me and it will never come to light -
so punitive data protection measures will not work cos there is no obligation
to report.

------
redthrowaway
_A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates
or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in
this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a
satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground. This
prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable
as human beings or man-made objects. In this paragraph, “dwelling” means any
building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or
intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more individuals._

This would seem to criminalize GoPros on RC airplanes, strapping a camera to a
balloon and recording its journey to the edge of space, and a bevy of other
harmless applications. At best, this bill is ill thought-out.

~~~
base698
Or skydiving with a camera if you look down. Oh dear don't look down it's a
misdemeanor!

------
urza
This is wrong on so many levels.

1\. Prohibition does not work. It has been tested many times over many
decades. If people of New Hampshire are afraid of aerial photography how about
this: When anyone (incl. government) wants to take pictures from drones over
some area in N.H., they need to tell in advance and concerned property owners
can permit or prohibit the action.

2\. Sponsoring bills is a very strange practice to me (I am from Europe). I
dont understand how this is democracy.

3\. Government should be more restricted in what it can to than its citizens.
Not the other way around.

The world needs new law-making system(s). More democratic and rational.

------
logn
This is an interesting issue. Normally I'm all for privacy but I think we need
some way to allow for innovation yet still ensure privacy. Actually I think
banning the government and allowing others is a starting point. I think maybe
a petition or license-based system would be good. I'd hate for a software
startup to be disallowed from taking pictures for some new innovative idea. I
think Google Maps is really just the start of a whole wave of technology we'll
see.

------
tantalor
Wouldn't this make more sense as a civil matter than than a criminal
misdemeanor? Then you don't have to worry about breaking the law photographing
your own property.

------
eksith
If they intend to ban arial photography from "any device that is not supported
by the ground", they might as well ban all general aviation in New Hampshire.
Or will there be fines and confiscations if you take a camera on your next
flight?

This is yet another unenforcable law.

Why can't they make more sensible ones in NH like this nugget of gold?
<http://www.dumblaws.com/law/630>

~~~
vacri
Hey, it's only illegal at night!

I wonder what the thinking was behind that law.

Edit: On second viewing, that's a highly suspect site. For example, for the UK
it has 'Divorces are Outlawed'. For a start, they're actually not - that's the
whole thing about the creation of the CofE, but more to the point, the
'Source' for the law is listed in its totality as " _BBC 17 Nov. 1999_ ", as
if that would help us verify it.

------
ipetepete
This is ridiculous. People need to be educated on what they don't understand
so the will stop being afraid and try to pass these unfounded, near-sited,
knee-jerk legislations.

If this goes more widespread, the government will be severely crippling my
hobby, and some of my supplemental income.

~~~
noonespecial
>some of my supplemental income.

What you are doing now is likely already quite illegal.

[http://fstoppers.com/using-drones-faa-approval-photos-or-
vid...](http://fstoppers.com/using-drones-faa-approval-photos-or-video-is-
illegal)

------
tamersalama
The bill should be correctly labelled as giving exclusive rights to government
for aerial photography.

This is wrong.

------
run4yourlives
This is one of those cases were google could wield it's near monopoly in
mapping services for good.

They should just simply decide to follow this law preemptively and eliminate
all aerial imagery of New Hampshire tomorrow. Let the uproar from the public
sort the law makers out.

~~~
brk
Does Google actually own the satellites taking the images, or are they
licensing them (as was my understanding) from Federally-funded satellites?

~~~
run4yourlives
I think most of the images are actually private aerial photographs.

------
crististm
How do these bills pop-up anyway?

~~~
protomyth
Some state lawmaker who doesn't think out the consequences of a bill or gets
caught in one of those "think of the children" moments writes up a crappy law.

I do believe in the 90's some extremely green (in many ways) congress-critter
wrote a law that would basically make farming illegal in the USA and require
quite a lot of buildings to be torn down (like the whole states of SD,ND, and
WY). Bill did get some co-sponsors (tells you a little about the world there).
One house rep pointed out due to the wording that all building within a mile
of Central Park would have to be torn down. So ended the bill.

------
JVIDEL
I would agree if it wasn't for the recent report that FBI agents have
illegally accessed the bureau's DB to look for dirt on famous/important
people, either to sell that info to others or to blackmail them.

Yet another case of "who watches the watchmen?"

------
stcredzero
New Hampshire: Live Free or Spy

Drone use should actually be a bigger citizen's rights issue than guns.

------
mrb
This law would make so many things illegal: news helicopters filming road
traffic, taking pictures from your plane seat's window, from a valentine's day
hot-air balloon ride, filming your skydive, etc.

------
leot
One potential solution: require all drones (gov't included, unless there's a
warrant) to publicly identify their location and operator if operated higher
than, say, 20 feet.

------
matterhorn
This is ridiculously broad. It serves as a great example of H.L. Mencken's
famous quote, "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,
neat, and wrong."

------
fredBuddemeyer
the best part will be enforcement; each state can create an air force to
protect us from such potential threats.

~~~
neurotech1
Technically they do. It's the Air National Guard, some who fly F-16s or even
F-22 fighters. Of course, the Rules of Engagement are pretty restrictive, but
they are available to protect a state from aerial threats.

I doubt they'll use F-22s to take out little drones taking photos of someones
backyard.

------
maxk42
Let's do it the other way around.

------
j2d3
If we make aerial cameras illegal, only criminals will have aerial cameras!

------
jrockway
Prior restraint. Also, good luck enforcing New Hampshire law in space.

------
chris_mahan
I would prefer the opposite.

------
sbhere
So the government wants everyone but the government to be restricted from
something? Go figure!

------
kdazzle
live free or die

