Drone morality

Hyperbole, straw-man arguments, and ad-hominim attacks. Those are the only tools in the DJ toolbox. Don't try introducing logic or rational thought, it will fall on deaf ears.

What's funny is that you never actually seem to use a counter-argument aside from complain about his "hyperbole, straw-man arguments, and ad hominem [sic] attacks."

I think he provides some pretty solid arguments that nobody actually ever answers for. It's funny that people, in general, ask for privacy from government (NSA for example) but the moment you introduce a flying camera that you control, privacy is no longer an issue.

If I own property, I expect everyone to stay off of it whether that's on land or in the air, unless you have a warrant or are invited.

I think that is the heart of the argument - do you really "own" the air?

No, it's not so much about the legal aspect (i.e. "own" the air), it's whether or not it's moral to exploit that lack of ownership, especially against someone's explicit request. In other words, just because there is what amounts to a legal loophole doesn't mean it's moral to exploit it.

Sparty42 said:

What's funny is that you never actually seem to use a counter-argument aside from complain about his "hyperbole, straw-man arguments, and ad hominem [sic] attacks."

Well at least he's a consistent troll. ;-)

I don't know if a law could be written up this way, but if I own a home with about an acre of land (for example), I think a reasonable height restriction should be put into place over that entire acre.

I should be able to expect that aircraft that I don't own won't be seen hovering over my home with the potential of spying into it.

A lot of times legality comes down reasonable expectations. As a landowner, do I have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy from government and other people on my land?