My guess would the the contractor/s yeah. With permission most likely.
It's not like the blueprints are private, they are available online and have been for quite some time before the project even broke ground.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Campus 2 'Spaceship' Taking Shape as Construction Continues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What about a guy in a Cessna and a high res camera. You going to shoot him down too?
I can't believe I'm the first to mention this: did you people notice the car-sized (if not truck-sized) openings in the backstage and loading dock? And what a huge-ass loading dock it is! Clearly Apple's new auditorium is very much future-proof and lends some credence to the Apple Car rumours… 
I can't believe I'm the first to mention this: did you people notice the car-sized (if not truck-sized) openings in the backstage and loading dock? And what a huge-ass loading dock it is! Clearly Apple's new auditorium is very much future-proof and lends some credence to the Apple Car rumours…
Well having a "120,000 square foot auditorium" isn't too small either lol
I'm not sure how it translates to things outside of the paparazzi world, but there's a fairly new California law that is in play now: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/california-paparazzi-no-longer-can-use-drones-over/
Various people.
I think shooting down manned aircraft and its crew/passengers or damaging property has vastly different legal consequences…
Besides, now that I mention the law, it's not like you can't grab a pair of binoculars, note down the aircraft's registration number, investigate on your own/hire a PI and take legal action, whereas the only practical (if a bit extreme) defence against a tiny drone would be, IMHO, to outright shoot it down (using an RF jammer could wreak all sorts of havoc and would be potentially illegal, obviously).
By the way, even though I loved the video (and especially the close-ups… I know, right?) I do agree with those that say that flying a drone this close to a structure (be it private or public) should be illegal, if it isn't already. There's a reason why model aircraft enthusiasts perform their demos near crop fields or in generally natural, sparsely populated environments, and though the drones are less dangerous for people on the ground, they raise all sorts of privacy issues and can be extremely damaging to passenger jets.
The fact that AI's drone flights, in their official videos, are much more restrained, and that they include a stern warning about flying drones so close to nearby airports just goes to show how much more responsible they are. Also, even though Apple has been much more open as of late, I'm guessing the Gizmodo and ThinkSecret cautionary tales are (or should be, in some cases) still fresh in bloggers' minds…
Last edited:
If the 21st century ever needed a mausoleum built, this is it.
The five billion or whatever it will cost in the end is well spent, IMO. Even more so, as only a very small part of it comes from my pockets ;-)
If it turns out that employees love the place, find inspiration, can work together better and can complete projects with less stress - the five billion will just just be a blip in a couple of quarterly earnings.
The five billion or whatever it will cost in the end is well spent, IMO. Even more so, as only a very small part of it comes from my pockets ;-)
If it turns out that employees love the place, find inspiration, can work together better and can complete projects with less stress - the five billion will just just be a blip in a couple of quarterly earnings.
I know using drones in certain european countries is already restricted, or laws are made for using drones.
For instance, in The Netherlands you are not allowed to fly higher than 150 Meters, must have visual contact with the drone at any time, can't fly them above busy areas, like towns, and not allowed in restricted areas, like nearby to airports- military areas.
These are for very light drones, if you use drones commercially you need a permit, permits are hard to get and expensive.
The video is quite amazing, nicely done.
Keep in mind that nears about a dollar for every living person on this planet, plenty of people still make less than a dollar a day.
How it read as of today, looks like they broke the law, and I doubt apple would give them permission to shoot this. Also think its interesting that there was no security around the site while this was being shot that took notice.
1708.83.
(a) A person wrongfully occupies real property and is liable for damages pursuant to Section 3334 if, without express permission of the person or entity with the legal authority to grant access or without legal authority, he or she operates an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system less than 350 feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying the real property.
1708.83.
(a) A person wrongfully occupies real property and is liable for damages pursuant to Section 3334 if, without express permission of the person or entity with the legal authority to grant access or without legal authority, he or she operates an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system less than 350 feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying the real property.
I wish PBS would have made a series on the building of this complex. The logistics would be fascinating.
There could very well be some production going on that follows the construction and will be released at some point when the construction is actually complete.
It's very different. The laws have always drawn a distinction between airspace and land property rights.
By your reasoning, satellite imagery (ala Google) and aerial photography of all kinds should be illegal?
People have always been able to carry a camera with them in a aircraft and fly over places, taking pictures.
The only difference is that aircraft have to obey certain FAA regulations on minimum altitude (500 feet most places). Drones open the door for lower altitude photography.
But then there are camera capabilities. Cameras in space (even the rather modest ones used by Google) can spot people under certain circumstance, and Street View looks into yards and garages, etc., imaging cars and people. Aircraft can carry cameras that could read your drivers license in your hand. Drones tend to have crappy cameras so far. But give them time.
Bottom line, privacy is an indoor thing. Or stay under the trees. Easy for those of us in the tree-covered Pacific Northwest. As the world changes, one has to adapt.
Sure. AOL/Time Warner, New York Times, Bear Stearns, Union Carbide, Borland, Sun Micro, Yahoo, MySpace, Silicon Graphics. There are plenty of others. As long as they don't install a fountain in the foyer... they may get away with it.
Cessna's have to fly over 500 feet AGL over cities, but are usually far higher in FAA controlled *public* airspace. Only below 350 feet is trespassing according to the new California laws. Below that, a lot of homeowners would love a no-liability shoot-down law for drones flying over without permission. Maybe your mother or daughter wants to nude sunbath on the fenced back porch or something?
The Larkin Soap Company survived for 36 years after their famous and massively over-budget headquarters, designed by none other than Frank Lloyd Wright, were finished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larkin_Administration_Building
AEG, which had the foresight to hire Peter Behrens as architect, product designer and branding expert, existed as an independent company for 89 more years, and its brand, also designed by Behrens and only minimally updated still endures to this day (as does his famous turbine factory).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEG_turbine_factory
Just to give two examples from the top of my head…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larkin_Administration_Building
AEG, which had the foresight to hire Peter Behrens as architect, product designer and branding expert, existed as an independent company for 89 more years, and its brand, also designed by Behrens and only minimally updated still endures to this day (as does his famous turbine factory).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEG_turbine_factory
Just to give two examples from the top of my head…
You might want to re-read the story, it is the opposite.
Both the court and the FAA has said it is illegal to shoot down drones, FAA confirms it is a federal violation.
It's very clear from the federal and most of the state laws, you DO NOT own the sky or the airspace above your building, it is as simple as that.
If someone has a telescope that can look at you from the street, that's not illegal as well.
Yes, its not always a harbinger. Hopefully, this one isn't either but it is there and more common today than in the past.The Larkin Soap Company survived for 36 years after their famous and massively over-budget headquarters designed by Frank Lloyd Wright were finished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larkin_Administration_Building
AEG, which had the foresight to hire Peter Behrens as architect, product designer and branding expert, existed as an independent company for 89 more years, and its brand, also designed by Behrens and only minimally updated still endures to this day (as does the building).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEG_turbine_factory
Just to give two examples from the top of my head…
Yahoo!, for example, might not be at the top of the world or anything, but they are alive and doing better than just surviving. To add to that, their headquarters aren't anything extravagant, especially by Silicon Valley standards.