More likely by the construction company's insurance, and to control dust. MR gets a lot of strange ideas. These so-called "privacy fences" are just one of them.
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.
New Aerial Video Shows Significant Construction Progress at Apple Campus 2
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
More likely by the construction company's insurance, and to control dust. MR gets a lot of strange ideas. These so-called "privacy fences" are just one of them.
The FAA is working on rules for commercial UAVs. Non-commercial, hobbyist use must simply stay below 400 feet within 3 miles of an airport and "sufficient distance from populated areas".
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf
In the YouTube description, the aircraft operators states he made the flight while the construction site was unoccupied, and stayed below 400 feet.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics has their own safety code:
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.PDF
However, the FAA was recently slapped by an NTSB judge for trying to fine someone making a video, ruling the operator did not violate an Federal Aviation Regulations in force at the time.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...late-small-rc-aircraft-as-drones-judge-rules/
Last edited:
Yes, I know -- but the distinction between commercial and noncommercial use is not always obvious. If you take a photo or video with your drone, and post it to your blog, is that commercial or noncommercial use? And hobbyists today don't make a habit of notifying airport operators within three miles.
There are 2 main parts, plus one related:
1. The legality of taking pictures of private property from the air.
- This is 100% legal. Airspace in the US is regulated by the FAA, and over populated areas, as long as there isn't some other "controlling reason" (near an airport, military base, etc,) as long as you are 1000 ft above the ground or structures, you're clear to fly there all you want - taking pictures of anything you want. (See "Streisand Effect.")
2. The legality of flying a remotely-controlled unmanned aircraft.
- This is the questionable part. By current FAA law, a "remote control aircraft" must be flown visually, not by camera feed. This is based on laws over "RC airplanes" that have been around for decades. But the new "drones" that are designed to fly further than visual range, and operated not via looking directly at the aircraft, but by looking at a video feed coming from it, are uncertain. The FAA doesn't have firm rules.
3. The legality of "commercial photography" from unmanned aircraft.
- This is firmly illegal. One cannot use an unmanned aircraft (either "conventional RC airplane" or new "remotely piloted drone,") for commercial purposes. A news station can't use it to monitor traffic (because the reporting of traffic is a "commercial use,") and Apple themselves couldn't use it to monitor construction progress, ironically. But as long as the use of the drone isn't to take pictures for commercial use, as long as it is a private individual taking pictures for their own personal use, rather than to sell them, they're in the clear.
1. Said almost this exact thing on the first page.
2. Rules are being promulgated by the FAA, but one of the complicating factors is state-by-state legislation attempting to address other issues, such as privacy, stalking, and the like. In California:
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-assembly-floor-bills-20140129-story.html
3. As I pointed out above, the distinction between commercial and noncommercial use is often not as readily determined as you suggest. The other point I made is that many of the rules that supposedly already apply to RC hobbyists are not much observed.
Knowing how he worked at NeXT and Apple, all of us Alum would be sent an email to the unveiling of the vision he wanted for Apple.
He hated Infinite Loop 1. He had no hand in it's design.
Yeah, this is a fairly creepy thing to do. I'm kind of surprised nobody mentioned him flying this low over a road, either, rather close to at least one moving vehicle. Distraction much?
At least he did this while there was no active construction going on, at which point it would be even more dangerous and creepy. There's a reason we tend to regulate moving objects in the sky. Sometimes they fall down. Distracting workers using heavy machinery isn't the best idea either.
Whether or not this sort of thing is entirely within the bounds of current law, can we all at least say this sort of activity has moral gray areas? Regardless of how curious you are about something, it's not always a good thing to indulge that curiosity. I'm a little disturbed at how eager videos like this seem to make some people want to go out and get their own flying privacy invader. It seems to me society needs to catch up philosophically with the pace of emerging technology.
At least he did this while there was no active construction going on, at which point it would be even more dangerous and creepy. There's a reason we tend to regulate moving objects in the sky. Sometimes they fall down. Distracting workers using heavy machinery isn't the best idea either.
Whether or not this sort of thing is entirely within the bounds of current law, can we all at least say this sort of activity has moral gray areas? Regardless of how curious you are about something, it's not always a good thing to indulge that curiosity. I'm a little disturbed at how eager videos like this seem to make some people want to go out and get their own flying privacy invader. It seems to me society needs to catch up philosophically with the pace of emerging technology.
Or a sarcasm tag. It's amazing how many people on this forum would have posted that seriously.
Yes..
not quite up to date but still can see the progress.. interesting stuff..
Looks like you can watch the progress on Apple maps 3D view
not quite up to date but still can see the progress.. interesting stuff..