Business News

Aerial photography ban proposed for all but government

In New Hampshire, an aerial photography ban has raised more questions than answer as fears regarding drones heat up – measured reaction or overreaction?

Published

7 years ago

February 26, 2013

The American Genius Staff

aerial photography ban

New Hampshire bill proposes aerial photography ban

Neal Kurk (R), member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives since 1986 has recently sponsored HB 619-FN to make aerial photography illegal in their state, which many are considering a look into the future. States are currently struggling with how to deal with advances in drone technology, particularly mini-drones, fueled by fears not only that the federal government is using drones on U.S. soil, but are using them abroad not only to take out terrorists, but suspected terrorists, even if American. Click to tweet.

UPDATE: Aerial photography ban amended, concerns continue

Much media attention has been showered on the topic, bringing light to the full array of uses, not just the CIA’s implementation of the technologies. According to Fox correspondent Catherine Herridge, the Federal Aviation Administration has already granted 327 licenses, and it projects as many as 10,000 licensed systems by 2017.

New Hampshire’s proposed aerial photography ban states the following:
[ba-quote]A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground. This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects. In this paragraph, “dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more individuals. [/ba-quote]

Potential problems with this bill

Although the bill seeks to protect residents from being spied on or documented, it very clearly excludes government officials who may use drones for official business. Most protests against drones are not against hobbyists, Google Maps satellites, commercial flights, the film industry, or aerial photographers, rather against the government’s use of the devices.

The aerial photography ban is unclear as to the very specific non-threatening uses of aerial devices such as aerial real estate photography for listings, or if a homeowner is photographing their own home, and while it states that “This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects,” possibly implying that if no human is in any photo or video taken, it is acceptable.

More reading: Private Facebook status updates made visible by Storify

Additionally, it is unclear the implications of this bill on existing Google maps or existing images that have been taken via aerial device, and videography does not seem to be clearly addressed in the bill.

Fines for violations of a bill that could spread to other states

Rep. Kurk proposes a fine for violating the aerial photography ban, costing $62.71 per case in fiscal year 2014, rising to $64.40 per case thereafter, with an estimated $10,000 burden on taxpayers should someone appeal, and of course the $35,000 per year prison cost per person that fails to pay and is arrested.

Real estate photographer Larry Lohrman said, “Based on the public discussion that I’ve seen on this subject, I’m going to go out on a limb and make a wild guess and predict that this is not going to be an isolated incident. My guess is that other states will be doing this too. Particularly since so many cities are resisting use of UAVs by law enforcement.”

[ba-pdfviewer pdfurl=”https://theamericangenius.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HB0619.pdf” width=”100%” height=”900px”]

0 Shares

Up Next

Topshop and Google+ team up for Fashion Week

Don't Miss

Chinese hackers: a cultural perspective

The American Genius Staff

The American Genius is news, insights, tools, and inspiration for business owners and professionals. AG condenses information on technology, business, social media, startups, economics and more, so you don’t have to.

37 Comments

Demtrev Tonstoski

February 26, 2013 at 4:03 pm

People have been able to do this with zoom lenes in planes for years. I don’t think this Rep. Kurk has thought through his bill very well.

Reply
Don

February 26, 2013 at 4:34 pm

“This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects,” possibly implying that if no human is in any photo or video taken, it is acceptable.”

~This assumption is incorrect as a man made object could be cars, houses any other type of vehicle, fence, tower or any other man made object making the only permissible photos those of nature.

Reply
Scritti Politti

February 26, 2013 at 4:45 pm

Amateur-hour and embarrassing. The fact that people like this get elected explains why our country is in such dire straits. Local and state governments don’t control airspace. That’s the domain of the federal government and ONLY the federal government.

Everything about this reeks of ignorance. “Human beings or man-made objects”? So you can only take an aerial picture if there’s not a single person, building, boat, road, power line, or trash can in it? How about man-made lakes? Not to mention that this is totally arbitrary. Why are aerial pictures prohibited but not ground pictures? Is it based on some theory that people can hide behind trees or other foliage? What about those in barren areas who are just as visible from the ground as from the air?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Reply
@rh

February 26, 2013 at 5:21 pm

Drones could be useful in the motion picture industry, apparently not in New Hampshire.

Reply
- Shawn Woelfel
  
  February 26, 2013 at 10:41 pm
  
  Exactly.. this ban proposal is absurd.
  
  Reply
BlondeFurious

February 26, 2013 at 5:48 pm

Making this decision was easy for Kurk. It was simply a matter of getting paid well—or receiving some other significant favor—by the special interest group behind it or not getting paid well. He choose to get paid!

Kurk doesn’t have a difficult time living with himself over proposing bills like this either. He’s in a special class of 550 or so individuals that get to call the shots for the other 300 million Americans. He’s mostly exempt from living by the same rules the rest of us live by. That’s one of the perks of holding his office. Isn’t it wonderful the fine people of the United States elect representatives that cannot truly represent us because of the perks of their office?

Enough sarcasm… this is an awful, awful bill. In the hands of the masses the fantastic advantages of drone aerial technology far outweigh the negatives. Think of aerial crop scouting, validating insurance claims, taking overhead pictures of your property, leveraging another great tool for professional photography, filming independent films, etc…

The vast majority of people are law abiding, and desire to be so. Will there be people on the fringes who use aerial drone technology with malicious intent? Absolutely. I think people on the fringes do that with computers, animals, other people, guns, knives, food, financial schemes, mobile phones, etc., etc., etc. Those outliers are always going to be there.

What is the appropriate response to this bill? Throw it out! Demand any and all proposed legislation that caters to the fringe cases at the expense of the majority’s liberties to be rejected.

Reply
- BillinDetroit
  
  April 13, 2013 at 10:45 am
  
  “Demand any and all proposed legislation that caters to the fringe cases at the expense of the majority’s liberties to be rejected.”
  
  That casts fresh light on the current proposed gun confiscation laws now working their way through congress and through the legislators of several states.
  
  Reply
  - Robert Eidson
    
    April 18, 2013 at 1:47 am
    
    “Gun confiscation laws”? Who are these dumbass Constitutional experts?
    
    Reply
Shawn Woelfel

February 26, 2013 at 10:38 pm

Aerial photography and “drones” are two totally separate things. Drones are used by the Police and the government. Aerial photography is done with R/C models or an actual full scale aircraft. This ban proposal is due to people NOT knowing the difference between the two. A drone can do far more than any radio controlled model ever could, and if some whack job did build a model to do what drones can do.. then by all means.. lock him up. The ban proposals are getting way out of hand. You’re trying to ban someones hobby and even worse some peoples profession. Get real.

Reply
Keith mckenna

February 27, 2013 at 5:50 pm

Seriously Mr Kurk? Do you kiss your mama with the same mouth you use to propose such stupid bills with?

Reply
Tom Benedict

March 2, 2013 at 5:16 pm

Wow. So some kid setting a self-timer on his camera and tossing it into the air to make a photo of their back yard is suddenly guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Greeeeeeat…

And the next lawmaker who says, “But that’s not how the law would be used” needs to have their brain checked at the door to see if they have any actual live neurons inside. It’s not up to the author of the bill to enforce it. It’s up to the police and the judicial system. So if that’s not how the law should be used, that’s not how it should be worded.

Reply
Gerel Gruber

March 2, 2013 at 8:21 pm

Stupidity will get you anywhere including being continually elected I guess. Absurd coming from the Live Free or Die state, or did the motto change to Just Die recently? Google Maps et. al., real estate developers, tourism, news reporting, Freedom of Speech, land management, conservation, science and education, professional sports coverage, art, hot air balloons, gliders, public lands, private property rights, commercial enterprise, traffic and disaster reporting to name a few reasons why this law sucks. Limiting freedoms limits free enterprise which damages the economy among other things, but if you want to charge and fine a twelve-year old child as a terrorist for taking a photo with his camera from a plane in order to make up for lost revenue I guess that’s up to you Kurt.

Reply
Happeh

March 4, 2013 at 5:40 am

None of you attacking Mr Kirk have made any comments indicating you have truly thought this through.

Every one of you that says “this has been going on for years” has not followed that up with “on a limited basis”. How many airplanes, helicopters, model airplanes, model rockets or balloons have there been in the past taking aerial photos? Not very many.

But now that technology has improved so much, instead of buying a new TV, video game console, or clothes for the new school year, anyone can buy a drone that can fly all over the neighborhood taking pictures through people’s windows.

And since the law says “anything visible from the street is legal to take pictures of”, all of those people flying spy drones are going to be perfectly legal when they catch you and the missus through your open bedroom window, open living room window, open kitchen window etc, where you thought you were safe because you live on 5 acres that is completely fenced off.

If you really want to trash someone like Mr Kirk you should examine the issue from every angle so you look thoughtful and concerned, instead of looking like people who don’t care about the issue at all and are only here because you want to disparage Mr Kirk.

Reply
- HairyHerry
  
  March 4, 2013 at 5:05 pm
  
  I could take one of the two tiny spycams I possess and tape it on the end of a broomstick and use that to look over your fence to view your property. Does that mean we should now outlaw broomsticks, long sticks of PVC pipe, long lengths of copper tubing, long tree limbs, etc I could use to violate your PRIVACY? Get my drift on this?? This is why I’m commenting against the lack of logic that Mr. Kirk in this regard. There are already privacy laws existing in New Hampshire already, so why does Mr Kirk want responsible users of the technology to be barred from utilizing it, yet makes NO PEEP WHATSOEVER regarding his State’s usage of such? I will continue to disparage Mr. Kirk when he doesn’t use his functional cranium – a typical faux pas of nearly all legislators whom act on non-existent kneejerk reactions. In Other Words, I want him to seriously reconsider balancing his proposed Act, and if I were a New Hampshireman in the legislature in Concord, I’d insist on modification to balance this.
  
  Reply
- Christopher Jay Campbell
  
  March 6, 2013 at 1:28 pm
  
  Perhaps you should learn a little more about aerial photography. It is a huge business, from Google satellites to aerial surveys for proposed businesses. Before almost any chain restaurant is built, there is an aerial survey. Aerial photos are extremely popular in postcards, magazines, and advertisements. Aerial photography is not rare; the fact is, most inhabited places are photographed quite frequently. People even buy aerial portraits of their homes and businesses and hang them on their walls. Private companies, scientists, and researchers of all kinds rely extensively on aerial photography.
  
  The fact is, if you are outdoors, you are on public view. Someone probably sees you, whether from the ground or from the air. As for people taking pictures of you in your bedroom, there are already laws against voyeurism. However, if you are standing in your window looking out at the street, there is no way in the world that you are going to successfully argue that your privacy was violated. Think of all the photos in magazines and elsewhere showing people in windows, in stores, in restaurants, at sporting events, in their offices, etc. Do you really think a picture of a glass office building full of people is secured with model releases from every individual in the building? Your employer may have security camera photographing you at work and in the parking lot. Your hotel is filled with security cameras photographing you in all public areas. Security cameras watch to catch cheaters at casinos. Security cameras look for crime such as prostitution, robbery, and drug dealing in public parks and other public areas.
  
  Further, the proposed law is probably unconstitutional as an unreasonable restraint on freedom of expression. It is easily proven that the law provides no additional level of privacy that you do not already have. The courts are highly unlikely to uphold this law.
  
  Reply
- Robert Eidson
  
  April 18, 2013 at 1:50 am
  
  You sound like a strong supporter of that waco congressman. Need to check hospital records to determine when the full-frontal lobotomy was performed!
  
  Reply
HairyHerry

March 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm

What is the deal New Hampshire? Live Free Or Die?? Or are these just words on your license tags??? I’m glad some New Hampshiremen are asking questions now about this Act of Stupidity. This is problematic when 1) existing privacy laws are not being cited with this proposed act, 2) that the sponsoring legislator assumes this technology in the hands of We The People will be abused against their fellow New Hampshiremen, 3) that no issues regarding FPV craft in New Hampshire have been noted going into this proposed Act, 4) No mention that State Government should be EQUALLY BOUND as their Citizens, and 5) Not even at consideration would be a sunset clause to revisit this potential issue that does not even exist!
This is even a better reason why FPV hobbyists should unite. Texas is considering similar legislation now and before you know it, only the same government fascists who allow the banksters their free reign will be those with the ability to use this technology, no checks and balances by We The People because legislators would rather we remain as Sheeple instead of the People, despite the fact a NH lawmaker makes extremely little from their legislative activities.

Reply
HairyHerry

March 4, 2013 at 5:09 pm

Please! It’s our GOVERNMENT who is into the terrorism part of this. Are you really that much of a sheep? Read more of these comments, take your meds, and get a grip!

Reply
- vonskippy
  
  March 4, 2013 at 5:11 pm
  
  Apparently you’re so completely stupid that you can’t recognize simple sarcasm.
  
  Reply
  - HairyHerry
    
    March 4, 2013 at 5:32 pm
    
    Sorry about that. Understand that I did not sense sarcasm in this and I, HH hereby withdraws that comment against you as it’s the correct thing to do. Too many sheeple simply say Meh! at problematic matters as this and move on. Until enough take this and other issues seriously enough, we won’t even have a Country left worth living in.
    
    Reply
Christopher Jay Campbell

March 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm

Okay, so people are afraid of being spied upon by government drones. So let’s outlaw all aerial photography except spy photos made by government drones. How does this make any sense at all?

Reply

Business News

Working from home could be permanent for many after COVID

(BUSINESS NEWS) Lockdown has millions of workers doing their jobs from home, and many will never go back to the office again. So how do you settle in for the long run?

Published

5 hours ago

July 13, 2020

Desmond Meagley, Staff Writer

Facebook announced in May that they estimate to have about half of their staff working from home indefinitely, even after the pandemic ends. Twitter also made headlines around the same time with similar statements.

When staff work remotely, companies save on major expenses like rent, heating, and electricity. Nationwide (yes, the insurance provider!) recently closed five regional offices, simply because they no longer needed them, thanks to remote working. Talk about cost cutting!

It does beg us to ask: Why do we spend so much money on gas and so many hours in traffic to do things at the office that we can easily accomplish at home?

If you’re reading this right now, you probably have all the tools you need in order to do (at least part of) your job from anywhere: An internet connection and one or two devices, like a cell phone and a computer. That’s all you need in order to collaborate with people all around the globe. It’s honestly kind of surprising that mainstream work culture hasn’t caught up to this technology sooner, considering it’s been widely available for roughly a generation. And the stay-at-home orders have all but dispelled the myth that working from home makes employees less productive.

If these big businesses are eager to make the transition, it will set the tone moving forward for other industries. Undoubtedly, tech companies stand to seriously benefit from a broad shift to remote work, considering they provide the tools that make it possible.

However, there are considerable barriers to overcome before telecommuting can fully go mainstream. For one, it’s still hard to set boundaries between work & play from home, especially when you lack a dedicated office space. If you spend any substantial amount of time at work mindlessly scrolling through Facebook or watching cat videos on Youtube, then that habit is likely to follow you into the remote workplace (and don’t think I’m just throwing shade here, I’m guilty as charged).

There are also financial limitations that can prevent one from efficiently working from home. For example, if I normally use an office computer for my job, but don’t own a computer personally, who would be responsible for ensuring that I get a computer to effectively do my job during this crisis?

Regardless, whenever things go ‘back to normal’, wouldn’t it be great if working from home became a widely accepted option? Job opportunities would be more accessible to skilled candidates from areas outside of cities and tech hubs, those with chronic illness and disabilities that limit them to their houses, and parents with young children who need supervision and care.

If done equitably, we may end up seeing the new shift to remote work have a powerful, progressive influence on the way that we all get things done.

Business News

Plastic bags are making a comeback, thanks to COVID-19

(BUSINESS NEWS) Plastic bags are back, whether you like it or not – at least for now.

Published

3 days ago

July 10, 2020

Desmond Meagley, Staff Writer

Single use plastic bags are rising like a phoenix from the ashes of illegality all over the country, from California to New York. Reusable bags are falling out of favor in an effort to curtail the spread of COVID-19. It’s a logical step: the less something is handled, generally, the safer it is going to be. And porous paper bags are thought to have a higher potential to spread the virus through contact.

It’s worth mentioning that single use plastic bags are considerably more
environmentally efficient to manufacture compared to paper, cloth, and reusable plastic bags. Per unit, they require very little material to make and are easily mass produced. It also goes without saying that they have a very short lifespan, after which they end up sitting in landfills, littering streets, or drifting through oceans.

In the grand scheme of things, it’s hard to deny that single use plastics have the potential to be as dangerous to humans as COVID-19. Coronavirus is a very immediate existential threat to us in the United States, but the scale of the global crises that stem from the irresponsible consumption of cheap disposable goods, also cannot be overstated. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch isn’t going anywhere. (And did you know that it’s just one of many huge garbage patches around the world?)

So… what exactly are we going to do about the comeback of plastic bags? Because to be honest, I used to work in grocery retail, and it is difficult and often unrewarding. So, I wouldn’t exactly love handling potentially contaminated tote bags all day in the midst of a pandemic if I were still a supermarket employee. You couldn’t pay me enough to feel comfortable with that – forget minimum wage!

I used to have a plastic bag stuffed full of other plastic bags sitting in my kitchen, like American nesting dolls, before disposable plastics fell from grace. (I’m sure some of y’all know exactly what I’m talking about.) This bag of bags was never a point of pride. It got really annoying because it just kept growing. There are only so many practical home uses for the standard throw-away plastic shopping bag. Very small trash can liners; holding snarls of unused cables, another thing I accumulate for no reason; extremely low-budget packing material; one could get crafty and somehow weave them into a horrible sweater, I guess.

I don’t miss my bag of bags. I don’t want to have to deal with another. Hey, Silicon Valley? Got any disruptive ideas for this one?

Even if we concede that disposable plastics are a necessary evil in the fight against COVID-19, the fact remains that they stick around long after you’re done with them. That’s true whether you throw them out or not.

I’m not trying to direct blame anywhere. Of course businesses should do their best to keep their customers and staff safe, and if that means using plastic bags, so be it. Without clear guidance from our federal government, every part of society has been fumbling and figuring out how to keep one another healthy with the tools they’ve got at hand. (…Well, almost every part.)

The changes to the state bag bans have been cautious and temporary so far, which is a small relief. But nobody really knows how much longer the pandemic will rage on and necessitate the relaxations.

I won’t pretend that I have a sure solution. All I can really ask is that we all be extra mindful of our usage of these disposable plastic products. Let’s think creatively about what we might otherwise throw away. We must not trade one apocalypse for another.

Business News

Scammers are taking advantage of the unemployed

(BUSINESS NEWS) In a country that’s been stricken by higher-than-ever levels of unemployment, scammers have found a unique way to target this vulnerable demographic.

Published

3 days ago

July 10, 2020

Karyl Trejo, Staff Writer

With unemployment rates reaching unprecedented levels in recent months, it’s a fairly safe bet to say that there’s something that many of us currently have in common: we need a job. While these levels are slowly starting to decline, already down to 11.1 percent in June from an all-time high of 14.7 percent in April, the need for steady gainful employment is still great for many Americans. That’s what makes the newest scam making its rounds particularly vile.

There’s a common misconception that people who get scammed largely deserved their misfortune. Whether it’s presumed that they got greedy, they fell for something that was too good to be true, or they were looking for an easy way out, it’s both unfair and unkind to make these snap judgements of victims of scammers. When it comes to scammers, there’s only one party to blame for these wrongful actions — the scammers themselves.

And with literally millions of people looking for a job right now, these scammers have found a new round of susceptible people to target. It’s a fairly well documented fact that scammers have a knack for knowing who will be easy prey, and this latest scam is no different. According to a report from the Better Business Bureau (BBB), scammers have ramped up their efforts to separate desperate job seekers from what’s left of their meager funds.

This scam is nothing new, but it has surged in popularity with the sheer number of people looking for jobs in today’s economy. Dubbed the “employment scam,” it can take on many forms, but the end result remains the same. At the end of the day, if a person is bilked out of their money, then the scammer has won.

What does this scam look like, and how can you safeguard yourself from falling prey to it? Please note that anyone — from all walks of life, no matter your age, your sex, your race, or any other factor — can become a victim of a scam. The only way to protect yourself is to be aware of the scam and recognize the signs of it. If a potential employer asks any of the following of you, then there’s a good chance they’re a scammer:

You are required to pay the so-called employer for your own training up front.
You are expected to give up your banking/personal info for a credit check.
You are overpaid by a fraudulent check and told to wire back the difference.
You are told that you need to pay for expensive equipment to work from home.

Please note that these scammers can spoof legitimate companies. They may try to pass themselves off as real-deal businesses; they’ve even tried to emulate the BBB itself. And when you refuse to follow through with their demands, they will double down and might even become hostile and aggressive, resorting to threats and cajoling. It’s important to not cave in; once they start bullying you, they know the gig is up.

The BBB also notes that coronavirus has created a “perfect storm” for scammers, but there are a few things you can do to protect yourself. They advise that you avoid social isolation, as that can make you more vulnerable to scammers. When in doubt, seek out a friend’s feedback. Sometimes a reality check can make all the difference in whether or not you become a mark. Do a little bit of digging online before you accept an “offer” or share personal information. And finally, be prudent. No matter how many warnings the BBB puts out each year about scams, the only person who can really protect you from getting scammed is just one person…yourself.