Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Click Orlando)   Local 6 in Orlando finds a drone with a GoPro cam containing 2 hours of video - part of which shows woman sunbathing   (clickorlando.com) divider line 31
    More: Florida, GoPro, Altamonte Springs  
•       •       •

13469 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-25 11:38:17 AM  
3 votes:

MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.


I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.
2013-06-25 11:59:32 AM  
2 votes:

MNguy: Get a farking life, don't take pictures of people when they have not explicitly given permission to do so.  I guess this is difficult for weirdos and creeps to understand.


sinoconcept.com
That's one farkload of release forms, but I'm sure they got them all signed, as per your definition of "reality".
2013-06-25 11:44:02 AM  
2 votes:

MNguy: ReapTheChaos: So now RC helicopters are considered drones?

If you are taking pictures of people who didn't explicitly say they wanted pictures taken.


Public, how does it work\? The idea that you're private on your roof or in your backyard, that you have some reasonable expectation that nobody will ever utilize the airspace over you is just... wacky. If someone uses tech to penetrate your home (thermals or whatever), then by all means, go after them... but you don't have some weird right to wander around in publicly view-able areas and not be photographed/recorded... your expectation of privacy is not some giant bubble that encompasses everywhere you go.
2013-06-25 11:09:06 AM  
2 votes:
img845.imageshack.us

JAFO
2013-06-25 11:07:49 AM  
2 votes:

lack of warmth: Waldo Pepper: and the news folks are so outrage about the drone videotaping the women sunbathing that they show the woman sunbathing

Exactly, everyone outrage over stuff happening in public and can be shown on tv without even contacting anyone for permission.  Meanwhile some kid is really bummed about loosing his toy.


If I'm in my backyard and find one hovering over me, I'd hardly consider that "public" and thus I will proceed to engage with my own anti-aircraft measures.
2013-06-25 04:12:40 PM  
1 votes:
HOW ABOUT YOU DON'T TAKE PICS OF PEOPLE IN PUBLIC SPACES AND RESPECT OTHERS' PRIVACY.
2013-06-25 03:28:19 PM  
1 votes:
Ban cameras from them.  Make it legal to shoot them down if they're over your property.

Free-roaming farking cats are bad enough.  Don't need this shiat too.
2013-06-25 02:52:11 PM  
1 votes:

MNguy: leave me and my family alone.


If you want complete isolation, then completely isolate yourself. If you want to join other people in shared spaces, you're going to give up some privacy. Deal with it.
2013-06-25 12:50:26 PM  
1 votes:

firefly212: TheGreatGazoo: I have a feeling there will be a solution found really quickly when an important lawmaker's 18 year old daughter is filmed sunbathing topless/naked in their private back yard.

The solution will be to ban all the legitimate uses of them, in the interest of privacy... so no more firespotting, surveying land, looking for standing dead (tree) patches that need to be cut on your own land, etc... because privacy.


Look, I'm not against some public interest stuff, but taking pictures of a topless gal for shiats and giggles doesn't seem right.
2013-06-25 12:42:38 PM  
1 votes:
I have a feeling there will be a solution found really quickly when an important lawmaker's 18 year old daughter is filmed sunbathing topless/naked in their private back yard.
2013-06-25 12:36:51 PM  
1 votes:
We now interrupt this privacy flamewar to bring you pictures of women sunbathing

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

i216.photobucket.com

Thank you.
We now return to your regularly scheduled flamewar.
2013-06-25 12:26:01 PM  
1 votes:
I'm not outside waving my dick around because there are decency laws against it.  But if I want to wave my dick around in my backyard whirlpool, I ought to be able to.
2013-06-25 12:10:09 PM  
1 votes:

MNguy: firefly212: MNguy: Mikey1969: MNguy: How is it different?  You're wrong and a little bit creepy.

I explained how it was different, I'm not "wrong and a little bit creepy". I'm right, and you're a 'lot bit' dense.

I'll explain it again:
Clothes are the privacy barrier. You violate that privacy barrier by hiding in a place where you can get around the barrier and take pictures. Same thing with people who sneak cameras into bathroons. They are getting around the privacy barrier. This woman is in public, she is wearing her choice of clothing in public(Her privacy barrier), and nobody is getting around that. If you are walking naked in your living room and can be seen from the street because your front blinds are open, you have no right to privacy there. Move from in front of the window, and you do. Once there is a barrier that people have to circumvent or violate(Such as a skirt in this case), you are protected.

You also aren't protected if you have a low fence in your yard and walk out back naked. People standing in the next yard don't have to avert their eyes. If you have a tall fence, on the other hand, and they climb a ladder, or drill a hole in it, then they are violating your right to privacy. The sad thing is; I'm pretty sure my 15 year old stepson can grasp this concept.

You're parsing words, and coming off like a farking creep who takes pictures of people who are unsuspecting.  It should involve an explicit agreement to allow photos, not some tenuous 'privacy barrier'.

I should be rich, but things aren't as they should be. As it stands, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy/non-recording/no photos when you are in publicly viewable areas. Whether we're talking about cities or companies using cctv systems, tourists taking pictures, or buzzwords like "drones" the reality is when you are in an area that can be viewed from a public place, you're putting yourself out there. If you don't want dirty nudie pics of you going around, be a nudist *inside* your ...


The swimming pool... good god, I took pictures of my nephews first swimming lesson the other day... there was like 20 kids in the picture, and two lifeguards, and even three or four swimming instructors I didn't bother to get the names of! The thing is, I understand your worries about the... perversions of others... I get that it's a dangerous world out there... but just like with actual terrorism and everything else, we can't let our fears dictate the rights of others. I'm sure other people took pictures of their kids (it was first day for all the 5 year olds), and I'm sure my nephew was in more than a few of those pictures. I can't really control what some bad person might be thinking when they see a picture any more than I could stop them from seeing it irl and having... inappropriate thoughts... about it later. Your job as a parent (I do some of the parenting b/c my big brother is blind) is about physical and emotional safety, making sure nobody touches them inappropriately, kidnaps them, or emotionally damages them. That's already a million things on the plate to do while you're trying to foster a safe environment and have fun with them... adding "thought police" into the mix, that would just put you into the realm where you're paying far more attention to the world around the kid than you are to the kid himself/herself.  At some point (unspecified), hyper-vigilance detracts from the rest of parenting, takes away from your ability to share great times with your kids, and fosters the wrong attitude in them (if you're so afraid, I'd wager your kids are overly wary too, even if they don't understand why).

There are bad people (very few and far between), but the world is a good place, full of mostly good people... raising kids to be terrified of everyone around them is just going to create an even worse generation than this current one in terms of pussies who can't cope with their fears.
2013-06-25 12:08:58 PM  
1 votes:

MNguy: I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that you know when a private moment is captured on film.  Maybe I shouldn't.


Not what you said, Einstein. Here is your 100% DIRECT quote. Point to the word "private", please:
"...don't take pictures of people when they have not explicitly given permission to do so."

See how the internet works?

PS: Given the nature of the traditional kiss at the drop of the New Year's ball, I can guarantee you that there are some "private moments" in that picture. And once again, hanging out in a PUBLIC area negates your expectation of privacy.
2013-06-25 11:56:35 AM  
1 votes:
fanbladesaresharp
If I'm in my backyard and find one hovering over me, I'd hardly consider that "public" and thus I will proceed to engage with my own anti-aircraft measures.


12 gauge ought to do it. #6 shot, #00 would be more devistating.
2013-06-25 11:46:14 AM  
1 votes:
The pedo taking pictures at the park says what?
2013-06-25 11:44:27 AM  
1 votes:
Aside from the scale and location of the pilot, how is this any different than "News Chopper 6" patrolling the skies?
2013-06-25 11:40:44 AM  
1 votes:

MNguy: firefly212: SlothB77: oops, nevermind.  I thought this was a government drone, not a private drone.

This is the thing... words words words... I could strap my go pro onto a 100 dollar model airplane and fly it around my mountain and it would technically be a "drone".... we've pissed our pants so much as a society that we're afraid of children's toys. God help our great nation if they ever saw the time I was 12 and managed to get remote triggered bottlerockets on a r/c airplane so my big brother and I could have "air battles" over the Chesapeake Bay.

Well, if I found out you and your brother were taking pictures of me and my family you best prepare yourself for a beat down.  I don't give a fark if you're having fun and battling in the air, but leave the cameras on the ground.


Really, you'd beat me up when I was 12 for putting cameras on their r/c aircraft toys? You have issues, dude.

/if go pros were around when I was 12, damn right I would have put them on my r/c toys... hell even now living in the mountains, people use them for surveying their land all the time... this idea that you're gonna go around beating people up for using their toys in a manner that's not illegal is... just over the top.
2013-06-25 11:35:29 AM  
1 votes:
Not a drone.
2013-06-25 11:31:54 AM  
1 votes:
hangout.altsounds.com
2013-06-25 11:30:21 AM  
1 votes:

firefly212: SlothB77: oops, nevermind.  I thought this was a government drone, not a private drone.

This is the thing... words words words... I could strap my go pro onto a 100 dollar model airplane and fly it around my mountain and it would technically be a "drone".... we've pissed our pants so much as a society that we're afraid of children's toys. God help our great nation if they ever saw the time I was 12 and managed to get remote triggered bottlerockets on a r/c airplane so my big brother and I could have "air battles" over the Chesapeake Bay.


Well, if I found out you and your brother were taking pictures of me and my family you best prepare yourself for a beat down.  I don't give a fark if you're having fun and battling in the air, but leave the cameras on the ground.
2013-06-25 11:28:41 AM  
1 votes:

MNguy: farking right her privacy was violated


No it wasn't, she was in a public place. It's why Google Street View cars can operate.

And no, it's nothing like taking upskirt pics at the mall. She went out in the bikini, and decided to lay in a public place in that bikini. With upskirt pics, you have to work to get around accepted barriers(Outer clothing) to get intimate shots of private areas. Apples and 427 engine blocks, my friend.

skinink: It says right in the article you can fly the drones as long as its in your line of sight. Once you lose sight you're breaking the law. And that's an FAA law he would be breaking.


It was also an equipment failure, as opposed to blatantly breaking the law. Still a violation, but this is 'get a fine' territory, that's about it.
2013-06-25 11:18:33 AM  
1 votes:

Mikey1969: vpb: It's cute that people think they have any sort of privacy out doors.

You do in your yard, and with a decent fence. If it can't be seen from the street, or a public area, you DO have a reasonable right to privacy. This woman, however, was at the public pool at the apartment complex, and therefore nothing illegal was happening, and her privacy was not violated in any way.

THIS is the part that annoyed me more:

In one shot, the drone races toward an apartment window, getting within feet of the glass.

No, in one shot, the drone files by some apartments, and then someone on the news team zooms the farking camera shot, that drone didn't "race" to the window. They did the same thing with the sanbathing woman, also. Fark "Local 6", they get the sleazeball award for sure here.


Just because it's legal to take picture of people unawares doesn't make it ok.  farking right her privacy was violated.  It's like taking upskirt videos at the mall.  You're a rotten, creepy fark who has no sense of decency.
2013-06-25 11:14:04 AM  
1 votes:
You have no expectation of privacy outdoors.
You have a diminished expectation of privacy in your car.
You have an expectation of privacy in your home.
2013-06-25 11:13:28 AM  
1 votes:

vpb: It's cute that people think they have any sort of privacy out doors.


You do in your yard, and with a decent fence. If it can't be seen from the street, or a public area, you DO have a reasonable right to privacy. This woman, however, was at the public pool at the apartment complex, and therefore nothing illegal was happening, and her privacy was not violated in any way.

THIS is the part that annoyed me more:

In one shot, the drone races toward an apartment window, getting within feet of the glass.

No, in one shot, the drone files by some apartments, and then someone on the news team zooms the farking camera shot, that drone didn't "race" to the window. They did the same thing with the sanbathing woman, also. Fark "Local 6", they get the sleazeball award for sure here.
2013-06-25 10:56:49 AM  
1 votes:
Why did the kid talk to the news? Now the cop have more than enough to investigate him if they want.
2013-06-25 10:47:57 AM  
1 votes:
so the toy helicopter I was thinking of getting my son for Christmas is now an evil spy tool of the devil?  Sweet!  I better get two.
2013-06-25 10:47:23 AM  
1 votes:
This is Orlando, you can throw a video camera up into the air and capture footage of a woman sunbathing.

I think we need to see the 2 hour video to make a real determination
2013-06-25 10:45:15 AM  
1 votes:
and this is news why?  news director should be taken to the set and beaten to a pulp on live TV
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-25 10:37:24 AM  
1 votes:
I am assuming that they don't realize that you can buy these things on Amazon for under $100.  There are plenty of people flying them.

It's cute that people think they have any sort of privacy out doors.
2013-06-25 10:17:44 AM  
1 votes:
But don't worry folks, the NSA would never misuse all that phone and internet data they have on you.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report