Beginning of the End? - Robotic Dogs Enforce Social Distancing

[Bombastinator]

It still annoys me that people use the term “robot” when talking about ROVs. A “robot” pilots itself.  An ROV is basically just a radio controlled car.  The Germans had combat ROVs in World War Two.  Tiny little tank things with treads and a cable running out behind them.  The move for allied soldiers was to cut the cable with the blade of a shovel.   

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Tristerin said:

No wonder Boston Dynamics is trialing this in another foreign country, illegal surveilling at its finest here

Is it illegal to walk around with a video camera in the US?

[Tristerin]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Is it illegal to walk around with a video camera in the US?

Unattended and attended are two different things, one is lawful, one is not - in public.

 

[straight_stewie]

It's a robot, so does that mean I can <American civil liberties> it without <hurting dogs is bad>?

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, straight_stewie said:

It's a robot, so does that mean I can <American civil liberties> it without <hurting dogs is bad>?

ooh fill-in-the-blank.  so kinda like mad libs?  
 

It’s a machine made of metal.  I don’t think it has the appropriate orafices.  Also eww.

[Intrafinesse]

On 5/11/2020 at 11:19 AM, That Franc said:

It's Singapore so you'd be fined at least 2000 dollars and probably banned from the country for vandalisim and harassment

And don't forget the caning.

Nothing like a good old caning to teach one manners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

[straight_stewie]

21 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

ooh fill-in-the-blank.  so kinda like mad libs?  
 

It’s a machine made of metal.  I don’t think it has the appropriate orafices.  Also eww.

I'm not from Minnesota, but that is definitely not covered by <American civil liberties> down where I'm from.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

I'm not from Minnesota, but that is definitely not covered by <American civil liberties> down where I'm from.

You’ve also apparently never played mad libs. Their definitions get pretty vague.

[straight_stewie]

7 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

You’ve also apparently never played mad libs. Their definitions get pretty vague.

I know. Just wearing my internet outlash prophylactic.

[StDragon]

 

With a cattle prod. 

 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Tristerin said:

Unattended and attended are two different things, one is lawful, one is not - in public.

 

So drones with cameras are illegal? I thought they were perfectly legal.

[Tristerin]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So drones with cameras are illegal? I thought they were perfectly legal.

Unattended - is the person on the same public grounds using a drone?  Are they recording in a public place?  All legal.  Attendance is key.  

 

Proof and catching people are an entire other topic - whereas in competition we have a saying "If the referee doesn't see it, its legal".  

 

EDIT - and we both have to understand that drone laws being drafted are very commonplace, since the previous way of ruling property was "to the heavens and hell" but that changed with underground piping, overhead lines, and airplanes.  So regulation will come to place for this to more clearly define it, I am sure (specifically drones, but right now the law is defined with attendance as far as I am aware, and I could prove I was attending my drone in public airspace - ground to 400 feet - if I in fact was occupying that same public space/area)

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Unattended - is the person on the same public grounds using a drone?  Are they recording in a public place?  All legal.  Attendance is key.  

 

Proof and catching people are an entire other topic - whereas in competition we have a saying "If the referee doesn't see it, its legal".  

 

EDIT - and we both have to understand that drone laws being drafted are very commonplace, since the previous way of ruling property was "to the heavens and hell" but that changed with underground piping, overhead lines, and airplanes.  So regulation will come to place for this to more clearly define it, I am sure (specifically drones, but right now the law is defined with attendance as far as I am aware, and I could prove I was attending my drone in public airspace - ground to 400 feet - if I in fact was occupying that same public space/area)

 

Interesting, I figure if the device is being controlled actively and obviously (not a hidden camera) then it might be hard to argue.  Which law does this break?

[Tristerin]

Just now, mr moose said:

 

Interesting, I figure if the device is being controlled actively and obviously (not a hidden camera) then it might be hard to argue.  Which law does this break?

Depends on the State

 

If you could prove someone was surveilling you, and they were not authorized to do so (again, goes back to Proof) - as public surveillance has been defined - than any that will stick for breaking these rules (State to State, but no where in the US is private citizen public surveillance authorized afaik)