Drone morality

thedevariouseffect said:

Oh my...

The HOA thing does explain alot...This is the person that helps enforce the stupid bylaws / etc that come with HOAs. Absolutely pathetic.

What exactly does that "Explain?"

The HOA President is responsible for managing, maintaining, and insuring the common areas and equipment of the community, such as the pool, playground, playground equipment, picnic area, the wall surrounding the community, lighting fixtures in the common area, arranging lawn maintenance and landscaping of common areas, handling hundreds of thousands of dollars in the community accounts, planning community events, leading meetings of the board of directors, preparing and mailing the community newsletters, and filing all of the myriad legal paperwork required by the state each year, including the corporation's annual report.

And yes, the President and other board members are also responsible for enforcing the covenants of the community. A group of rules designed to protect the property values of each and every homeowner. A group of rules that each homeowner voluntarily agreed to adhere to for their own protection when they purchased what is for most people the largest purchase they make in their lifetime. A set of rules that prevents someone from costing you tens of thousands of dollars when you sell your home because they painted their house pink with blue polka dots, or put a "garden" in their front yard that looks more like an Amazon jungle, or have several cars up on blocks in their yard, or rent their house to a dozen college students who have wild parties every weekend etc. etc.

As Chief Wahoo implied, when you purchase a home with an HOA, you are voluntarily agreeing in writing to having a restriction against the deed of your home that limits your rights in that property, and you are gaining benefits and value in exchange for those limitations.

Don't like it? Don't buy there!

Now I personally can't stand an overzealous HOA. I like to be able to do pretty much whatever I want on my own land. But I do see the value in having reasonable covenants not to mention community amenities and events. And, where I live, it is all but impossible to find a nice community that doesn't have an HOA.

So, before I bought I did my research and found a neighborhood with HOA covenants that are reasonable and a reputation for not being overbearing.

As far as my election to the board and subsequently the executive positions, I did not seek this role out. I was asked by my neighbors to do it. Why? Because I was well liked in the community, respected as a leader, and recognized as a reasonable, easygoing person.

When I ran the HOA, I did of course enforce the covenants. But I didn't have someone going around measuring how many inches people's tree leaves overhung the sidewalks and sending violation notices in the mail.

I only dealt with things that most reasonable people would think ought to be addressed. And I did so by going and knocking on that person's door like a friendly neighbor and chatting with them nicely. If somebody had a financial situation that made it difficult for them to have their flaky old paint redone, or a temporary physical ailment that kept them from mowing their yard, I would give them a lot of leeway.

I was determined to be the ANTI-stereotypical HOA Nazi, and I was, and that is why my neighbors chose me and re-elected me.

Why am I mentioning this and what is the relevance? Because the prejudice and attitudes a small number of members exhibit here is appalling.

I was labelled quote "absolutely pathetic" by someone just because I was an HOA President.

Unbelievable, and shameful.

From Mirriam Webster:

PREJUDICE: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

BIGOT: A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

TL;DR

Actually ok I read like the first 3 sentences, and then gave up. If I kept reading your self righteous posts I may resort to blowing beer out my nose from laughing so hard.

Also just noticed during the reply, it's Merriam Webster...How the hell did you go to a dictionary and then type the dictionaries name incorrectly? That right there is beautiful.

I, too, had a hard time reading much more without chuckling at the self-imposed importance given to those "responsibilities" mentioned. It's really not that important.

Try not to fall off your high horse!

I realized I've been quite foolish.

I've been repeatedly trying to have rational, logical, intelligent, thoughtful conversation with a handful of people who have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of capacity to do so.

I'd have been just as well off trying to get a paraplegic to walk.

My bad.

And I thought your other analogies were bad, this one is in such poor taste it makes the others rather forgettable.

From reading your posts, you have not been trying to have a conversation at all. I'd have to guess your 'I did so by going and knocking on that person's door like a friendly neighbor and chatting with them nicely.' came across the same way.

DA20Pilot said:

I've been repeatedly trying to have...thoughtful conversation...

What about an HOA is thoughtful? Lol

I'd have been just as well off trying to get a paraplegic to walk

DA20Pilot said:

I realized I've been quite foolish.

I concur.

I've been repeatedly trying to have rational, logical, intelligent, thoughtful conversation with a handful of people who have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of capacity to do so.

I disagree you went on a diatribe initially because some called the video a "douche" move. You continually repeated the mantra "because it's legal", It's a public highway", and then to add your the HOA president. You stated you could state numerous legal statutes and then went on to do so. You lost the room, so to speak, because your posts gave off the air of superiority.

As part of your response to one member you posted "People's perceptions are a function of themselves and are often revealing in ways they don't realize". As I have never met you I have nothing else to base my perception by. Perception is reality and this is my reality.

I'd have been just as well off trying to get a paraplegic to walk.

My bad.

My bad is correct, this analogy is offensive to all disabled people and those who have in their families or know disabled people.

You took this personally and became defensive. That in turn came off as offensive in your posts. When you feel like you're being attacked by people who don't even know each other, maybe the issue is not them, sometimes the issue could be you.

I guess a lengthy response will follow.

Oh, Kevinj, if only we had a smidge more fog... lolol

Seriously though, I had tried to establish a macro-view of the topics at hand and show how at the root they are an exchange of liberty for security (or the perception therof), as mentioned by my fellow pilot a few posts up. I could link the story to CP via the route of intolerance of the security afforded by "true" equality versus the freedoms associated with common law and basic tolerance of others as they exist, or could exist.

At the end though I felt a little like I was tilting at windmills and really just wanted to talk about coasters and dark rides and fried food... so I just made it a nice short story recommendation.

It is a pretty good story.

It's a great short story, and it was nice to be reminded of it. It was one of my first "serious" reads in AP English many moons ago. I get the angle you're taking, and respect the thought put it into it...and I can see the road your unseen post would have traveled.

While it wasn't brought up much, the policy is less about privacy, and more about safety. While city, state, and federal laws have not yet caught up to the fad of drones, the park simply has to put up some type of policy due to the inherent risk they could pose. No, no one is suggesting drones are inherently dangerous, or that all those licensed drone pilots out there are flying irresponsibly. That said, it's not a stretch of the imagination to ponder the idea that some irresponsible human being who just has to get a killer shot of a coaster will fly to close or control the toy poorly leading to an accident none of us want to see.

The simplest thing for a park like Cedar Point to do is to create a policy, regardless of its legal teeth, in the hopes that people will simply follow it. And apparently most do.

And apparently those who don't and get caught get asked to take their videos down (and then do), or take them down out of fear of possible consequences they had not thought of before.

And while I don't think the drone policy has much to do with privacy, it's also not a stretch of the imagination that the park could at some point be working on something that they intend to be a surprise. Theming, a queue path, an element not visible from Perimeter Road, whatever...if a drone is being used to snoop in and around an area that is currently under construction potential temporary secrets could be revealed; and it sucks for those who actually enjoy the anticipation and build up if a curtain gets pulled back before it was intended to be. It's like a sibling snooping through your presents when you actually want to be surprised.

And now I've reinserted myself into a conversation I had happily stepped away from, but alas...

I guess I'll take the hit for that...but, welcome back!

Now, back away slowly... If we walk without rhythm we wont attract the conversation...

;)

DA20Pilot said:

I believe that my input to the discussion on the drone legality subject has been nuanced...

For all of your impressive verbosity, your argument boils down to "it ain't illegal, so it ain't immoral." That's not a nuanced argument.

Some are pouncing on this guy because he is apart of an HOA and is president. Yet he posted an essay and him being those things has nothing to do with the topic.

Some of you have gone in circles to the point where things that aren't related to the topic at hand are used to discredit others arguments on the topic. Even if he is president of "Whatever", does it really factor into the comments that followed? So DA2OPilot I see you're points and disagree on a couple. But I think you're a smart guy and I respect that.

He brought it up as though it gave him authority. That's obviously not relevant to the moral use of drones over private property.

CP Maverick said:

Because drones are almost entirely used for photography. I'm not going to be okay with someone flying over and possibly photographing my property without my permission. I'm not talking about the use of space. I'm talking about invasion of privacy and the moral questions brought up by the "legal" definitions of where you are permitted to fly drones. It's disrespectful to the property owners. I can't stop someone from parking on the street in front of my house, but it's courteous to let me know that you are using the space adjacent to my property.

There is nothing I see wrong with flying a drone over someone else's property. They don't own the airspace above them. Even from a morality standpoint, I wouldn't give a damn if Joe or Bill doesn't want their property to be photographed because I might be working hard on an aerial photography project of my area or city. The same rules apply to taking photos from a drone that apply to with a normal DSLR camera. If I am in public, or in a private area publicly accessible (mall, museum, train station, airport etc.), I can take photos of anyone or anything and they can't force me to stop. Even if there is a no-photo policy, once the photos are taken, they cannot force you to delete the media. Do what you gotta do to get the shot.

Cool! So when can I come over to get some shots of you in your home through your windows? Don't worry though, I'll stand far enough away from your property. And don't try to bring up any invasion of privacy excuses because I'll just say I was doing a survey of the area.

I'll do what I gotta do to get the shot!;)

Through the windows is NOT the same as outside in the open

BTW Google & Bing take Ariel pics all the time--just not with drones.

TTD 120mph said:

Cool! So when can I come over to get some shots of you in your home through your windows? Don't worry though, I'll stand far enough away from your property. And don't try to bring up any invasion of privacy excuses because I'll just say I was doing a survey of the area.

I'll do what I gotta do to get the shot!;)

Ok, do what you gotta do! I don't care, as long as you stay outside my house.

Just because you don't value your privacy (or right to free speech, or right to bear arms, etc.) doesn't mean others don't value theirs. And just because you're willing to abandon your privacy (or right to free speech, etc.) doesn't mean others should have to.

Furthermore, you're conflating two separate concepts here - private versus public spaces. Yes, we understand that while in a public space we give up a certain amount of privacy and are thus subject to having pictures taken. In a private space that no longer applies. I mean, in a public space I understand that someone could surreptitiously record my conversations. I would consider it a massive violation of my privacy if someone were to record conversations that occur in the privacy of my home.

Captain Hawkeye said:

BTW Google & Bing take Ariel pics all the time--just not with drones.

Ariel pics?

Anyhow, I don't understand your argument. You're suggesting because some entities already take pictures, that makes it morally acceptable? That's patently absurd. I mean, theft, murder, rape, etc., all already occur. That those things occur does not make them morally acceptable.

Society (or their elected representatives) have deemed Google/Bing pics as an acceptable intrusion on privacy rights. How does a drone differ from what they do legally? If you object to drones better start objecting to Google, Bing, etc

I need to start using my calendar more. I must have missed the meeting where Society voted on that.

But seriously, your comparison fails. There is an obvious difference between the detail provided by Google Maps and some asshat flying a 4K-equipped drone 100 feet overhead as my kids play in the backyard.