snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 03 December 2013, 05:58 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is online now
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,669
Default

I'm not sure what he's getting at and forgetting for the moment that the drones will only be carrying 5 pound packages; does he think the birds will smell the seed through all the packaging and attack the drone to get at it or that they will peck through all the packaging to get to the seed on the doorstep?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03 December 2013, 06:07 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali Infree View Post
My vision is that these retail delivery devices (RDDs), if you like, will be prone to being hijacked in any number of ways. What happens then?
Presumably the same thing that happens now when someone hijacks or steals stuff off a delivery truck.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03 December 2013, 07:12 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,368
Default

I'm a little taken aback at all the "they'll be flying pinatas" and people will shoot them down speculation. I guess people think that the only thing keeping other people from hijacking a UPS truck is that there's a person driving it?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03 December 2013, 07:36 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

I think most of it is tongue-in-cheek.. However given the fact that it may appear an easier crime given there are no actual people around and some of the paranoia about drones I could see it happening.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03 December 2013, 07:37 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

I do think they might be an easier target for theft than a truck.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03 December 2013, 07:40 PM
Cervus's Avatar
Cervus Cervus is offline
 
Join Date: 21 October 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,206
Default

Also, the entire concept is new (Flying robots! With stuff! Whoa!), whereas a several-ton truck is something we see every day and don't think about much. I think that might factor into it as well.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03 December 2013, 07:43 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is online now
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,669
Default

Do you? Someone would have to decisively knock it out of the air, hitting a small moving target and then hope that it crashed somewhere within reach without causing damage to the product either from the hit or the crash landing. And then what are the chances it would be something of value to the person committing the crime?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03 December 2013, 07:57 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

I would more chalk such things up to vandalism rather than actual attempts at theft (though I suppose it could be both). I don't really know what kind of firepower you'd need to bring one down, though depending on what part of the country you are in somebody will have it..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:01 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachlife! View Post
Someone would have to decisively knock it out of the air, hitting a small moving target and then hope that it crashed somewhere within reach without causing damage to the product either from the hit or the crash landing.
That's the basic description of duck hunting.

Shooting down this type of drone would be all pretty easy.

There have already been cases of people shooting down surveillance drones.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:07 PM
mags's Avatar
mags mags is offline
 
Join Date: 23 February 2006
Location: Springboro, OH
Posts: 5,104
Default

Considering you are presumed to own your own airspace (to a certain height under commercial aircraft corridors), would shooting one down over your land be a crime? Not returning the package would still presumably be, though.

As for "actually wanting what is in the package" is concerned, the package thief that lived in our old apartment building just took whatever he had access to, and didn't apparently worry it might not be something he wanted, could resell, or even know what it was. Funny enough, he stole one of our packages that contained some of the equipment used in the camera set up in our car that eventually caught him breaking into it, and ultimately got him arrested and thrown out (http://badthief.com). Since he signed his own name for the UPS signature it was a simple thing to track down which apartment had it, and get it (and a couple others) from his younger brother. They were open and the labels removed, but he wasn't a criminal genius. He definitely didn't know what it was.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:08 PM
Hero_Mike's Avatar
Hero_Mike Hero_Mike is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 April 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ & Hamilton, ON
Posts: 7,267
Default

Years ago, a courier company delivered a computer to the wrong address, rather than the office I worked at. We realized this when we got a delivery notification, including a scan of the signature, but had not computer. The courier company attempted to retrieve the computer the next day, but the recipient refused to give it up without some "negotiation of compensation", thinking that they had received a free computer as some kind of gift or prize. They then showed up with the sheriff, and the computer was given up without incident, negotiation, or compensation, though the threat of possible criminal charges was, I believe, strongly implied.

People are not entitled to keep a wrongly-delivered package, any more than they would be able to keep the goods from a (properly licensed) crashed or misdirected UAV. They aren't allowed to steal from a delivery truck, either, but they would have to give permission to someone crossing their private property, to deliver to a third party, right? That's where I see the violence against drones - as I mentioned in the other thread - when privately-owned drones fly over private property, to make delivery to a third party, people won't like that very much at all, as the possibility for drones to spy on people gives them a bad reputation....
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:11 PM
Spam & Cookies-mmm's Avatar
Spam & Cookies-mmm Spam & Cookies-mmm is offline
 
Join Date: 09 July 2002
Location: Northwest Florida
Posts: 12,864
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
I'm a little taken aback at all the "they'll be flying pinatas" and people will shoot them down speculation. I guess people think that the only thing keeping other people from hijacking a UPS truck is that there's a person driving it?
There are thieves. People walk through the neighborhood testing car doors and steal loose change and electronics out of the ones that are unlocked. Why wouldn't we expect the same thieves try to swat a drone out of the air for random loot?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:16 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero_Mike View Post
They aren't allowed to steal from a delivery truck, either, but they would have to give permission to someone crossing their private property, to deliver to a third party, right?
A lot of people live on roads that cross private property. You don't ordinarily have to get permission to use them. Nor can one simply say that the airspace above ones property is off limits and expect that to be upheld in court.

As for shooting things in the airspace over your property, mags - sure, just like you can shoot the mailman's truck simply because it's in your driveway. Somebody try it and let's see what happens. I don't think they'd just say "shucks we can't prosecute because the truck was on private property".
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:22 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mags View Post
Considering you are presumed to own your own airspace (to a certain height under commercial aircraft corridors), would shooting one down over your land be a crime?
IANAL, but yes. If it was trespassing, the legal solution would be to charge the company with trespassing, not damage/destroy the property in question. Also, you'd probably run afoul of the local version of "Shannon's Law", which prohibits firing into the air in cities and towns.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:26 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spam & Cookies-mmm View Post
There are thieves. People walk through the neighborhood testing car doors and steal loose change and electronics out of the ones that are unlocked. Why wouldn't we expect the same thieves try to swat a drone out of the air for random loot?
Maybe they will. But the fact that thieves can (and do) steal delivered items from mailboxes and yards and trucks hasn't been an impediment to the viability of mail and package delivery services. Why should we assume that the theft issue will grow proportionally larger if drone delivery is introduced?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:43 PM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,796
Default

That any any type of practical drone for the sort of service being suggested by Amazon would pretty much to be tracked pretty much in real time to pretty much it's exact location. So while I don't doubt that some people would certainly try to futz with them to some degree, the very technology they are futzing with would seem to make it less likely to succeed.

If someone swipes the UPS box from my doorstep... well that's that. Someone swipes my Amazon Drone Package and the authorities are at least going to have a better idea of where to start looking.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:45 PM
Horse Chestnut's Avatar
Horse Chestnut Horse Chestnut is offline
 
Join Date: 11 August 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 5,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
I'm a little taken aback at all the "they'll be flying pinatas" and people will shoot them down speculation. I guess people think that the only thing keeping other people from hijacking a UPS truck is that there's a person driving it?
I think the mindset that caused people to point lasers at aircrafts could also cause certain people to try shooting down a drone. Also, since there are no company employees around to act as witnesses, (or get hurt), and the packages haven't yet been delivered to anyone, some folk might rationalize the attempt by claiming it would be a victimless crime.

The one thing that might discourage any acts of theft or vandalism would be the GPS tracker, which would tell Amazon where and when the drone went down. Heck, add a camera to that and the drone could even I.D. the perp.

ETA - BTW, I noticed the delivery comes in a plastic container. Would you just mail that back to the warehouse, or would it be "Hey, free plastic container with any order!"? Or would you empty it and give the box back to the drone, which has patiently waited while you inspect the swag?.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:45 PM
Hero_Mike's Avatar
Hero_Mike Hero_Mike is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 April 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ & Hamilton, ON
Posts: 7,267
Default

I would imagine that it would depend upon what the drone was doing. If a person had a strong suspicion that a privately-owned drone, over their private property, was somehow spying on them (including taking pictures, video, audio, or access a person's encrypted - but not open - wifi) then I imagine that there should be some means to protect one's self against it.

Think of it this way - a person has a 6-foot high fence around their pool, as per building code. Some creep parks their camera-carrying drone over this backyard, and proceeds to video the people swimming or using their back yard in a "normal" fashion. I think that sympathy would lie with the homeowner, if the video was then shared publicly, or the subjects in the video were not adults (regardless of what they were wearing).

I recall a discussion about some website which shows pictures of people - even in various stages of undress or embarassing situations - even in their own homes - while filmed from public areas. This has been demonstrated to not be illegal, provided that would could be "seen" with the camera could be "seen" by a human in that same position. I was of the opinion that using a high-powered zoom lens, or binoculars, even from a public place, was an invasion of privacy, as the person viewing with the lens or binoculars, would not be visible. In other words, if there's no one outside your window close enough to see inside, or you expect there to be no one outside your window close enough to see inside, you don't feel the need to draw your blinds. Using a UAV, even from a public area, to invade privacy, is not going to be well receieved. A person could not hover 20 feet over my backyard, and they certainly couldn't legally hire a bucket truck and park on the street, just to be able to see over my fence.

Amazon's defence in this case would be that their UAV's are not intended to invade other people's privacy, though they have the capability of doing so. But if they have a camera, recording capability, or two-way communication back to a control center - all three of which are likely - then the intent may not be there, but the capability can. If the TSA can't be trusted to not record and keep images of naked people from their scanners, then how can a private company be trusted to not keep such images? That possibility is going to affect the public opinion on this for quite a while.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:46 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

The thief wouldn't necessarily have stolen it in hir own neighborhood, though, and probably wouldn't stick around after having done so.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03 December 2013, 09:49 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

People will just get used to seeing them fly around the same way we got used to carrying around six hundred dollar computers in our pockets. Won't people steal them? Well, yes, but not enough to make any huge difference
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nuclear testing = x-ray snopes Science 10 03 December 2013 11:32 PM
Japanese Maglev Train Begins Full Speed Testing at 310 mph A Turtle Named Mack Business Bytes 20 05 September 2013 03:17 AM
Radio host tricked by Onion story on drones at Obama’s inauguration snopes Soapbox Derby 3 26 January 2013 06:34 PM
Animal testing MySpace bulletin (NFBSK) Pikey Queen Inboxer Rebellion 17 06 August 2007 04:58 PM
UFO drones and CARET major accent Spook Central 9 04 July 2007 01:53 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.