Sep 172018

Politicians and bureaucrats, aren’t they wonderful?  They create some of the laws that are the cornerstone of our civilisation.  We gain much stability in the world from their work.

Many are often well versed in law, and how the legal systems of the world, work.  They believe that their laws are above all overs.

So much so, they’ll even try to legislate the ratio of a circle’s circumference from its diameter.  Thankfully back then, others had better common sense.

They legislated for websites to display a banner on their pages that people have to click, telling the user that the website uses cookies for XYZ purpose.  Now, I have never set foot in Europe, I really don’t have any desire to leave Australia for that matter.  I am not a European citizen.  I do not use a VPN for accessing foreign websites: they see my Australian IP address.

In spite of this, now every website insists on pestering me about a law that is not in force here.  You know what?  You can disable cookies.  It is a feature of web browsers.  Even NCSA Mosaic, Netscape Navigator and the first versions of Internet Explorer (which were dead ringers for NCSA’s browser by the way), had this feature.  I’m talking mid-90s era browsers … and every descendent thereon.

It’d be far more effective for the browser to ask if XYZ site was allowed to set a cookie, but no, let’s foist this burden onto the website owner.  I don’t doubt people abuse this feature for various nefarious purposes, but a solution this is not!

It gets better though.  To quote the EFF (Today, Europe Lost The Internet. Now, We Fight Back):

Today, in a vote that split almost every major EU party, Members of the European Parliament adopted every terrible proposal in the new Copyright Directive and rejected every good one, setting the stage for mass, automated surveillance and arbitrary censorship of the internet: text messages like tweets and Facebook updates; photos; videos; audio; software code — any and all media that can be copyrighted.

Three proposals passed the European Parliament, each of them catastrophic for free expression, privacy, and the arts:

1. Article 13: the Copyright Filters. All but the smallest platforms will have to defensively adopt copyright filters that examine everything you post and censor anything judged to be a copyright infringement.

Yep, this is basically much like China’s Great Firewall, just outsourced.

It actually has me thinking about whether it is possible to detect if a given HTTP client is from the EU, and respond back with a HTTP error 451, because doing business in the EU is just too dangerous legally.

Oct 102017

So, over the last few years, computing power has gotten us to the point where remotely operated aerial vehicles are not only a thing, but are cheap and widely available.

There are of course, lots of good points about these toys, lots of tasks in which they can be useful.  No, I don’t think Amazon Prime is one of them.

They come with their risks though, and there’s a big list of do’s and don’ts regarding their use.  For recreational use, CASA for example, have this list of rules.  This includes amongst other things, staying below 120m altitude, and 30m away from any person.

For a building, that might as well be 30m from the top of the roof, as you cannot tell if there are people within that building, or where in that building those people reside, or from what entrance they may exit.

I in principle have no problem with people playing around with them.  I draw the line where such vehicles enter a person’s property.

The laws are rather lax about what is considered trespass with regards to such vehicles.  The no-brainer is if the vehicle enters any building or lands (controlled or otherwise) on any surface within the property.  A big reason for this is that the legal system often trails technological advancement.

This does not mean it is valid to fly over someone’s property.  For one thing, you had better ensure there is absolutely no chance that your device might malfunction and cause damage or injury to any person or possession on that property.

Moreover, without speaking to the owner of said property, you make it impossible for that person to take any kind of preventative action that might reduce the risk of malfunction, or alert you to any risks posed on the property.

In my case, I operate an amateur radio station.  My transmitting equipment is capable of 100W transmit power between 1.8MHz and 54MHz, 50W transmit power between 144MHz and 148MHz, and 20W transmit power between 420MHz and 450MHz, using FM, SSB, AM and CW, and digital modes built on these analogue modulation schemes.

Most of my antennas are dipoles, so 2.2dBi, I do have some higher-gain whips, and of course, may choose to use yagis or even dish antennas.  The stations that I might choose to work are mostly terrestrial in nature, however, airborne stations such as satellites, or indeed bouncing off objects such as the Moon, are also possibilities.

Beyond the paperwork that was submitted when applying for my radio license (which for this callsign, was filed about 9 years ago now, or for my original callsign was filed back in December 2007), there is no paperwork required to be submitted or filled out prior to me commencing transmissions.  Not to the ACMA, not to CASA, not to registered drone operators in the local area, not anybody.

While I’ve successfully operated this station with no complaints from my neighbours for nearly 10 years… it is worth pointing out that the said neighbours are a good distance away from my transmitting equipment.  Far enough away that the electromagnetic fields generated are sufficiently diminished to pose no danger to themselves or their property.

Any drone that enters the property, is at risk of malfunction if it strays too close to transmitting antennas.  If you think I will cease activity because you are in the area, think again.  There is no expectation on my part that I should alter my activities due to the presence of a drone.  It is highly probable that, whilst being inside, I am completely unaware of your device’s presence.  I cannot, and will not, take responsibility for your device’s electromagnetic immunity, or lack thereof.

In the event that it does malfunction though… it will be deemed to have trespassed if it falls within the property, and may be confiscated.  If it causes damage to any person or possession within the property, it will be confiscated, and the owner will be expected to pay damages prior to the device’s return.

In short, until such time as the laws are clarified on the matter, I implore all operators of these devices, to not fly over any property without the express permission of the owner of that property.  At least then, we can all be on the same page, we can avoid problems, and make the operation safer for all.