Article on Domestic Drones

[Taylor Hiegel]

Hello, my name is Taylor Hiegel and I am a reporter with the Medill News Service working on a series about domestic drone usage for the McClatchy newspapers. My partner and I are looking to produce a video package displaying how to "build-your-own-drone" and I was wondering if anyone would be willing to speak with us about their experiences? We would really appreciate any information you guys can give us. You can contact me at taylor.ly...@gmail.com or taylorhi...@u.northwestern.edu. Thank you so much!

Best,

Taylor

[FireFlyer451]

>>We would really appreciate any information you guys can give us

I do not speak for this list, just me. You could start by not using the term 'drone'. It is grossly incorrect and does not at all reflect the kind of aircraft people here are building and flying. A better term would be sUAV/Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.  The media (which means you) continues to copy/paste the word 'drone', and in the process propagates misinformation to the public. In fact the media has done nothing but add to the fear, speculation, and downright incorrect factual information about potential UAV usage in the USA by public agencies (law enforcement, fire agencies, etc). To date (roughly two years) I have read only a single positive article regarding sUAV. But even this misuses the term 'drone'.

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/21079431/drones-saving-lives-thanks-to-central-texas-non-profit

There is so much good that can be done with these new tools. But in the wave of this media fear campaign (which I am sure sell a lot of eyeballs) are a host of proposed state laws that seek to ban UAV usage before it has even had a chance to be put to good work. Politicians can largely be counted on to be poorly informed, yet try to make sweeping legislation. It is what politicians seem to do. Once upon a time the media was there to actually provide facts and educate the public, and in some ways curb the uneducated politician's meat-handed work. That no longer occurs, you/the-media have largely turned into TMZ-everywhere. And combined with the foot-dragging by the FAA on this whole subject of small UAV in the national airspace helps little. The articles about concern over privacy violations by UAV usage have completely ignored the the widespread privacy that has already gone away.

a. 4th amendment - already exists to protect citizens from government intrusion in a wide variety of situations (including unwarranted privacy violations by any means).
b. cell phones - already broadcast location information almost constantly
c. online email account - the government can read your email if it sits in your inbox for longer than 180 days, without a warrant. Not to mention the web tracking that occurs when you surf Al Gore's internet.
d. cameras everywhere, traffic and otherwise
e. Police Helicopters - they have been flying for years and yet where was the media outcry about privacy violations?

There is already a tremendous amount of what many consider 'privacy infringement' occurring daily, and has been going on for years. Why have UAV suddenly jumped to the forefront of media attention?  Answer: because it is new and it sells readership/advertising.

>>We would really appreciate any information you guys can give us

Did this help?