It might become illegal to have a camera on an RC aircraft!
I don't have much to say, but these videos explain what's going down, and its not good!
Oregon Senate has drafted bill 71 that will make FPV illegal! These are some video responses towardes it.
We need to take action before its to late!
Keep up the sighing and scream at them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)
Log In to reply
Another reason we should be concern about it even if we don't live in the US is that if it becomes illegal there it could become illegal where you live soon after.
Log In to reply
I live in Iowa and I really hope something like this is not at all considered.. I have been doing research in agriculture crop analysis using UAVs.. such as vegation stress analysis and other very applicatable technologies to greatly benefit our state's biggest export... which is crops. You can't do this type of analysis if you can't fly a camera.
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
As A FPV community we need form our own organization to help protect us from such laws. As a formed group we can then educated law makers and protect our selfs and be view in the public eye as not a menace.
This is how such groups and many more came about. NRA, AMA, NAMBA, NHRA, NASCAR etc.
Log In to reply
I'm glad that I don't live in U.S. However if there's going to be a international FPV organization, I'm definitely joining.
Log In to reply
https://www.change.org/petitions/oregon-senate-bill-71-protect-the-rc-hobby-aerial-photography-and-fpv-communities
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
if someone's gonna spy, they aren't gonna obey the no-cam-on-RC-aircraft law either.
Log In to reply
Paranoia is what it's all about and we can thank the media for the sensationalist stories they now pedal (never let the truth get in the way of a good story). In Australia recently during our annual summer high fire season, we now call it catastrophic not just high. OMG where to from here, I no Phantasmagorical!!! Just my 2 cents worth Cheers everyone
Log In to reply
Understand that the "Liberal anti-American left" is constantly taking away our American rights in small increments till we have no freedoms at all. Please read what AMA has to say:
REPORT_ON_REVISED-550-560-OCT-8-2012
Amendment to 550 ->AFSCREPORT101 (pdf)
15. Why were privacy protection requirements included in the revised documents?
These safeguards were included to provide 4th Amendment rights to privacy protection for individuals
and their property from model aircraft equipped with imaging technology when used for surveillance.
One of the provisions in Federal Law 112-95 Sec 336-2 for model aircraft to be excluded from FAA
regulations requires model aircraft are operated within the programming of a nationwide communitybased
organization (CBO) that has been accepted/approved for CBO status by the FAA. The AMA has
chosen this path in order to operate under its accepted Safety Code and Operational Requirements
including Privacy Protection Safeguards rather than be subject to potentially onerous governmental
regulations with respect to Privacy Protection for those operating model aircraft outside of the CBO
default path. We also had a responsibility to provide operational standards that are acceptable and
compliant within our insurance programming, requiring members to operate their model aircraft
PAGE 12 OF 16 (Revision 01/14/2013)
without violating existing laws which could include first and fourth amendment rights of citizens to
privacy protection in cases where a suit is filed for invasion of privacy as a result of unauthorized
aerial surveillance.
Source: http://www.modelaircraft.org/
Support AMA, be a member. They preserve our rights!
Log In to reply
16. Does the AMA Privacy Protection Statement essential outlaw aerial photography and videoing?
The AFS committee views the updated AMA Privacy Protection Statement as not at all outlawing aerial
photographing or videoing. We believe it’s better for us to have written our own Privacy Protection
Safeguard then leave it unattended; waiting for what very well may be onerous government privacy
regulation. In the US anyone may take photos/videos in public places except when a legal statute or
ordinance exist and when individuals are in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy
such as restrooms, dressing rooms, medical facilities and inside their homes. Property owners may
legally prohibit video/photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from
videoing/photographing their property from other locations (which may include from airspace near
their property or 400’ above their property without the use of telephoto lenses while not flying directly
over people or structures). In most locations you may reasonably assume that taking
video/photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment
call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to
object. Taking aerial photos/videos that include a person’s house and property may be fine but doing so
in the fenced in pool area when someone is skinny dipping would not be permissible.
Log In to reply
If they would attempt to induct such language in a freedom killing bill like that then we are on a path to ban public ground level photography as well. Its all non-sense. If it persists then we all as hobbyists need to fight for our rights. Just because we use cameras in the air makes it no different than the photographer on the ground since we can be in a real aircraft if we wanted to do the same thing for recreational. We can always put in a petition on whitehouse.gov
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create
Log In to reply