
Texas Declares War on Drones - cpeterso
http://robots.net/article/3542.html
======
OldSchool
Texas and its long tradition of "pride of independence" has, at best, only
resulted in a parallel version of Federal Government policy. Undesirable
Federal policy X will almost always still show up in Texas - it will just be
presented and perceived as though it has been arrived-at independently as the
will of Texans.

If sovereignty is your thing, other than a strong stand on gun rights there
are states in the US with policy that correlates far less with D.C. and they
don't make it their claim to fame either.

~~~
hadronzoo
I've participated in the political process in Texas and I'm not sure that this
is true. Take for example HB 80:
[http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00...](http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00080I.pdf)

~~~
OldSchool
I remember hearing about this and the subsequent threats to cut off travel to
Texas. Yes, it is nice to hear when Texas lawmakers stand up for their state's
sovereignty.

------
DanielBMarkham
As both a libertarian and tech junkie, I have serious concerns about the use
of drone surveillance and am excited to see the technology develop.

The best I can figure, what's needed is _parity_ in drone use. That is,
whatever is good for the government should automatically be good for the
citizens to do. If the government wants to use hi-res cameras to surveil a
city all day long, then anybody else should be able to do so too. If the
government wants to arm drones, then I should be able to arm my own drones.

I don't think that's an answer, but I think it will work for a decade or two
-- hopefully long enough for us to develop workable policies.

~~~
d23
> If the government wants to arm drones, then I should be able to arm my own
> drones.

Surely you jest. Do you honestly think this is a valid line of reasoning?

~~~
malandrew
I think this would fall under the right to bare arms, would it not. There's
nothing about the second amendment that restricts arms to only those you can
carry. At the end of the day, the 2nd amendment was put in place as the last
line of defense against a tyrannical government. Given that motivation, would
it not make sense that citizens should have at least some degree of parity
with the US government. Basically enough parity on an individual level that
the citizens of a country _in aggregate_ could challenge an unjust government.
I emphasized _in aggregate_ since that is the language that ensures that one
individual citizen off his rocker cannot challenge a government that he alone
thinks is tyrannical. i.e. one individual can't have nuclear weaponry or
advanced fighter or bomber jets or tanks, because those types of weaponry
allows one citizen a disproportionate impact if they choose to bare and use
their arms before drumming up consensus with fellow citizens that feel the
same.

If the government can arm drones, I think citizens should have the right to
arm drones up to some set quantity, like 2-4 drones. Citizens should also have
the right to maintain anti-drone technology capable of shooting down any
drones above their property.

You may think I'm a right-wing nut after reading that statement, but actually
I spent enough time in China, especially the western part to get a feel for
what happens where there is an extreme asymmetry in armaments between a
government and its citizens. The Chinese province XinJiang feels like an
occupied country. I imagine that Tibet felt the like an occupied country as
well until the rail lines were built enabling ethnic cleansing by dilution,
making the occupation less obvious than it still is in XinJiang.

~~~
bmelton
In the Second Amendment, you are correct -- there is nothing limiting you to
arms that you can carry. Since then, however, the Supreme Court has, on more
than one occasion, defined "arms" to mean "man portable arms".

I believe this narrow definition (and FAA monitored airspace) that would
prevent you from owning your own drone (even if you could build it), and is
what keeps us from owning missiles, rocket launchers (even though many are in
fact man-portable), etc., despite the fact that the Revolutionary War was won
with cannons and ships that formed our militia and navy, all provided by the
citizenry at the time.

------
ck2
Sadly it's not a war on drone use by any level of government, only
individuals.

I suspect government drones will get federal protection if people try to use
them as skeet targets when they fly over their property.

Countdown to when the public starts to say "oh well, what can you do, we need
to be safe" (ala TSA).

~~~
bmelton
Their comfortable viewing distance is something like 12,000 feet, which is
almost 3 miles up. You're not likely to have anybody shooting at them because
they'll never see them.

That said, I agree that people will accept their new passengerless overlords,
and it'll probably start in New York.

------
buddylw
This is a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that the Texas legislature really
can't stop. Cameras are becoming more and more ubiquitous with or without
drones.

Even with the law there's nothing stopping someone from posting illegally
captured photos anonymously. The hobbyists will be ones that feel the impact
of the law and the more clandestine drone operators that they aim to prevent
will continue unabated.

I'm sure that in the not so distant future when any police officer can launch
a drone all of these privacy worries will go right out the window.

In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "Sunlight is said
to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."
The good news here is that thanks to technology, our future is definitely
going to be a bright place for all of us whether we like it or not.

~~~
bmelton
I pretty much agree with you, but having seen the demo of the drone, there's a
pretty big difference between a camera on every street corner, and a camera
flying 3 miles up in the sky that you can't possibly see, but that is able to
watch, draw boxes around and track every moving object in a small city.

Again, I don't exactly know where the line is or should be drawn, but the
1.8Gigapixel camera on those drones are just super creepy.

------
ttttannebaum
Wow, how disappointing. Just another lesson demonstrating that if you hear
about a law being passed and it sounds good (or bad), it's really just
motivated by the interests of those with the most power.

------
temphn
For anyone else who was curious about the drone photographing an environmental
violation, here's the denouement and the company's side of the story. In
short, the Ondruseks state that an unmaintained government-controlled sewer
pipe was responsible for the leak.

Your reaction to this story will depend on whether you believe businessmen are
mustache-twirlers who pollute rivers...or whether you believe that the kind of
government that leaves potholes unfilled for years might jump into action to
shift blame and point fingers rather than accept responsibility. From my POV,
there doesn't seem to be much motive to intentionally dumping blood into a
river rather than down a sewer line, so I kind of think the Ondruseks might be
telling the truth.

[http://www.suasnews.com/2012/12/20401/columbia-packing-co-
in...](http://www.suasnews.com/2012/12/20401/columbia-packing-co-indicted-for-
pigs-blood-in-trinity-river/)

    
    
      A Dallas County grand jury returned several indictments on
      Wednesday against an Oak Cliff meat packing company 
      accused of dumping animal blood in a creek that flows into 
      the Trinity River.
    
      Columbia Packing Company and its owner, Joe Ondrusek, 
      face twelve indictments for water pollution.
    
      If found guilty, the company could pay fines between
      $6,000 and $1.5 million. Ondrusek himself could get 
      five years in prison and fined up to $100,000 for each 
      count.
    
      The grand jury also found evidence that the company, 
      Joe Ondrusek and family member Donny Ondrusek tampered 
      with physical evidence and returned six counts against 
      them. The company could face more fines, and the Ondruseks 
      could face up to 10 years in prison and $10,000 
      for each charge.
    
      Neighbors near the plant on 11th Street had long 
      complained about noxious fumes and other problems from the 
      meat packers. But investigators didn’t get involved until 
      a remote-controlled toy enthusiast happened to affix a 
      video camera to an RC aircraft and videotape 
      gallons of what appeared to be blood gushing down the 
      river.
    
      Officials from the Dallas County Health Department, Texas 
      Environmental Crimes Task Force, Texas Commission on 
      Environmental Quality and Environmental Protection Agency 
      took photos and tested emissions.
    
      Weeks of investigation found the plant discharged pigs’ 
      blood into Cedar Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River. 
      In January 2012, the company issued a statement saying it 
      would never knowingly pollute the environment.
    
      The plant shut down operations a few months later.
    

[http://keranews.org/post/oak-cliff-columbia-packing-tells-
pi...](http://keranews.org/post/oak-cliff-columbia-packing-tells-pig-blood-
story-youtube)

    
    
      WHAT HAPPENED
    
      On Thursday, January 19, 2012, approximately 50  
      individuals from various governmental agencies executed 
      a search warrant at our plant. The search warrant accused 
      Columbia Packing of intentionally dumping waste into the 
      creek located a couple of hundred yards behind our plant.
    
      Let me be very clear: Columbia Packing did not and has not 
      intentionally or knowingly polluted or illegally dumped 
      hazardous materials. Our sewer line ties into a City of 
      Dallas sewer main. It does NOT dump into the creek as has 
      been alleged.
    
      There was a clog in the sewer line near a cleanout valve.  
      When water was used (i.e. washing down after production), 
      the sewer line was backing up causing water to come out an 
      overflow/vent pipe.  The city of Dallas apparently knew 
      there was a problem on December 9th, but allowed it to 
      continue and did not notify us until 41 days later when 
      government agencies served search warrants.
    
      Two days before the warrants were served, a Columbia lawn 
      mowing crew discovered the sewer overflow. We immediately 
      called a plumber and took swift action to begin stopping 
      the overflow. The clog was cleared and the line was open 
      and running cleanly into the city’s sewer main in less 
      than 24 hours.
    
      If the city had contacted us on December 9th, the problem 
      would have been fixed the same day. Instead, the city 
      knowingly allowed this overflow to continue for 41 days.  
      Government officials did something my family never would 
      have done- they allowed products to contaminate the 
      Trinity River for more than a month without taking 
      corrective action. The City has full access to our 
      property at all times to test the sewer line. At any time, 
      officials could have entered our property to find the 
      source of the overflow.
    
      There is no cross connection between our sewer line and 
      storm water. The City has now dye-tested and camera 
      inspected our sewer lines, and our sewer line is clear and 
      goes to the city sewer main.  The city maintains a box on 
      our sewer line that has for years monitored the amount of 
      waste water going through the line and the substances 
      contained in the waste water.  The city monitors this 
      locked box on its own schedule.
    
      When the City searched our property they found 18 possible 
      code violations. Within 30 days we addressed and repaired 
      each issue the City brought to our attention. Keep in 
      mind, our Oak Cliff facility has been in operation since 
      the early 1930’s, and the City of Dallas has never cited us 
      for any violations in the past.

~~~
techsupporter

      There was a clog in the sewer line near a cleanout valve.
    

This sounds like the cleanout is on the sewer customer's property.

    
    
      The City has full access to our property at all times to 
      test the sewer line. At any time, officials could have 
      entered our property to find the source of the overflow.
    

Not in Texas, they don't. The city water/sewer department or sewage treatment
company (or district) does not have right of entry into a property unless
invited by the subscriber. The subscriber has the duty to ensure that the
equipment on his or her property is functioning as designed. That is why laws
requiring water sprinkler backflow valves are enforced at the junction between
the city's water pipe and the customer's water pipe. The city or supply
company shut off the valve on their side of the pipe. Property demarcation is
a huge thing in Texas.

    
    
      The city of Dallas apparently knew 
      there was a problem on December 9th, but allowed it to 
      continue and did not notify us until 41 days later when 
      government agencies served search warrants.
    

This I can believe (I mean, lolcityofdallas amirite?) but it does not absolve
the property owner of liability for failure to maintain the sanitary sewer
connection on his property.

    
    
      The city maintains a box on our sewer line that has for 
      years monitored the amount of waste water going through 
      the line and the substances contained in the waste 
      water.  The city monitors this locked box on its own 
      schedule.
    

And when your sewer bill was half of what it should be, this didn't raise any
eyebrows? If there's one thing Dallas Water Utilities does shockingly well,
it's collect money from ratepayers.

I think that sending in the mod squad and filing charges was overkill. The
Trinity has been used and abused for decades and people are just now trying to
clean it up, so it doesn't shock me that TCEQ and Dallas dropped the hammer on
this fellow.

------
femto
I'd guess the aim is to make drones illegal, rather than actually prevent them
from flying (ie. make the law, but don't enforce it). At zero cost to the
state, this will mean any evidence gathered by a civilian drone will be
illegally obtained and so inadmissible in court.

------
LAMike
What if I took a photo of someone on the ground on their own private property?
That's not a crime right?

So whats the difference if I take a photo _not_ from the ground? It suddenly
becomes illegal?

~~~
callmeed
It's a crime if you photograph them where they _have a reasonable expectation
of privacy_ [1]. That's generally easy to interpret for normal (ground)
photography. But if I'm in my fenced backyard sunbathing nude and your drone
photographs me, that could be up for debate/discussion.

It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

1\.
[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-
rights_x.htm)

------
meaty
And I was hoping for a small surface to air missile system :)

I'm considering spending some time on an anti drone technology startup. I have
some ideas.

------
macspoofing
The right call for the wrong reasons

------
tomjen3
This is a great and very necessary law.

Do you want fotage of your 3 year old playing in an inflated pool in your back
yard to end up on pedo.net because you didn't put a cammo net over your back
yard?

Parrot drones are super fun, but it isn't hard to play with them responsibly.

~~~
jlgreco
> _Do you want fotage of your 3 year old playing in an inflated pool in your
> back yard to end up on pedo.net because you didn't put a cammo net over your
> back yard?_

Where does one acquire such an extreme level of paranoia? I mean, seriously...

~~~
jmccree
One word: paparazzi. They've rented helicopters to get pictures of weddings.
Cheap and easy drones? They'll be hovering over every starlet's swimming pool
attempting to get bikini pics. Private graveyard service? No worries, 10
drones hovering 10 feet above to capture the video of the grieving widow.
What's to keep people from using drones to hover outside Donald Trump's
windows 24/7 streaming views of his living room?

Sure, your average joe nobody is not likely to be targeted, but as the cost to
acquire aerial video goes from $x,xxx an hour for a helicopter, to $x/hr for a
drone, it will be used far more widely. In the past, it was prohibitively
expensive and time consuming to do surveillance work. Now a smart phone with
4G tied to a balloon can stream HD feeds.

In the past, you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage of
your home. If drones can take high resolution photos (and video) from the air,
this becomes null and void. I personally would prefer we have laws to protect
privacy instead being forced to completely enclose all outdoor pools or risk
showing up on poolperv.com's drone feeds. (Per my reading, the Video Voyeurism
Prevention Act of 2004 would not ban bathing suit video)

------
Qantourisc
Next up camera on a balloon!

~~~
josephkern
Already there; they are called aerostats.

------
largesse
I'm fine with citizens having drones but not the government.

~~~
hadronzoo
> Law enforcement officers could only use drones while executing a search
> warrant or if they had probable cause to believe someone is committing a
> felony, and firefighters can only use drones for fighting fire or to rescue
> a person whose life is “in imminent danger.” Texas’ border-patrolling
> Predator drones are exempt within 25 miles of the Mexican border. There are
> additional penalties for possession, display or distribution of data
> captured by an illegally flown drone. Gooden said the goal is to protect
> Texans’ privacy.

[http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/privacy-
and...](http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/privacy-and-drones)

~~~
largesse
The "probable cause" exemption is bullshit. If you have probable cause, get a
warrant.

No patrols, no police drone leaves the ground without a warrant targeting a
specific person or group.

~~~
jasonwocky
Depending on the details, the "probable cause that someone is committing a
felony" exemption is common to law enforcement. Exigent circumstances. If a
police officer hears signs of a struggle in your house, he doesn't have to get
a judge to sign a warrant before he kicks the door down.

~~~
mattstreet
But the way that gets used seems to be the officer somehow smells pot on every
damn person they want to violate.

~~~
bmelton
It's interesting you bring that up, as whether or not a drug-sniffing dog's
alert is considered grounds for determining probable cause was recently tested
by the Supreme Court.

I won't bore you with the full explanation of who won or why, but what I found
interesting is that the dog's past performance comes in to play, the results
of their testing, time in the field, etc. Also, the k-9 (human) officers are
supposed to keep a record of their results to be provided should this come
into question (which raises all sorts of things about false positives, false
negatives, etc., due to ignored reporting of incidents that didn't otherwise
generate paperwork).

I'm wondering now if there shouldn't be some similar standard of proof for
police officers. I've never had the "smells like pot in there" pulled on me
for any reason, but I almost hope that it happens at some point so that I can
poll the officer's record to see how many times he's used that line as
probable cause and what the feasibility of that is.

~~~
mattstreet
[http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/this-dog-can-send-
you-...](http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/this-dog-can-send-you-to-jail)

------
_account
Seems as though the title is not specific enough. It should read "Texas
Businesses Declare War on Drones".

Yet another case of moneyed interests exerting direct control over the
proletariat's freedoms. Yay Fascism.

------
janson0
I love my state...

~~~
janson0
I didn't even realize you could get down-voted on here ha. Well, sorry for my
comment, I guess?

