Quote:
Originally Posted by shore things
The sponsor is a really conservative republican. The issue that prompted this bill was protect of privacy from nosy neighbors and possible "stalker types." Originally this was not about government. I believe if you pull the bill language (hb619) you will note that an amendment was added to preserve the current abilities of law enforcement. Law enforcement, or government, was not part of the original bill structure and purpose, but as will happen once people start discussing a bill they realize it has effects that had not originally thought of when it was introduced. This is part of the process and the number of bills that are discussed and moved to study or voted inexpedient to legislate shows that the process does allow rational thought to prevail more often than not.
I remember reading quite some time ago that there were concerns about the fact that "drones," which could include an RC helicopter outfitted with a camera, are very cheap and easy to obtain and that they were now within the means of individuals that might use them to harass, intimidate, or extort others. I suspect this was an attempt to get ahead of the curve on this issue and not one with nefarious purposes. If nothing else it will call attention to an issue that should cause one pause if one were to actually give it a bit of thought.
|
I did read through the bill, and there was also a fairly lengthy discussion about it on another tech website I participate in.
Among the overall silliness of it (if you fly over NH on your way in or out of MHT will get you to jail if you take a pic with your cellphone?) I have concerns with things like this that restrict things from the people, and grant them only to law enforcement.
This seems like a bill that is either drafted by a very clueless individual, or drafted in excess for purposes of attention and to whittle it down to a concession, which would seem reasonable in relation to the original bill, but still excessive in relation to current standards.
Also, there are FAA laws already about aerial devices that make this bill mostly redundant anyway.