

You’re talking about camera resolution as the foundation for protesting the making of a law. I’m sure you know that technology advances quickly and just as drones went from being super expensive to affordable in about one year, high resolution cameras are on that same path. So, I’m thinking that you’re not on solid ground with the “I can’t see detail…
The example pictures shown prove nothing except the capabilities of the author’s own drone. The vast majority of hobby camera drones that are sold may be similarly limited, but there is no reason why a “drone” in general could not carry a camera with a telescopic lens and stabilization. For daylight use it would not even need to be large or heavy…
Oh Danny. I get your fascination with Drones and I can understand it, but frankly when Jeff Bezos announced that Amazon was in discussions with the FAA about using Drones for delivery I thought what an invasion of privacy and how annoying.
And your the Founding Editor, Marketing Land & Search Engine Land, whatever that is. I…
So, to recap. Guy with drone wants to fly it in public places without breaking the law. If, and when, that drone fails and falls from the sky; he will retrieve it from the ocean, someone’s backyard, or any myriad of difficult to get to places. The authors argument for drones is the same as people who want to operate their car without insurance, “Well… I never had an accident”.
Generation X, actually.
Lots of people of various income levels have and enjoy drones.
The postscript addresses the zoom issue and why this law doesn’t do anything protect against that.
I didn’t say anything about having an accident. I actually think there’s a good argument for licensing drone pilots and perhaps requiring insurance.
I also didn’t say that public places shouldn’t be restricted. Why don’t you go back and read the conclusion, where I said I am for sensible restrictions.