Mets and drones

[Guest 41Forever]

I have to say that I was surprised to see the Mets pop up in a middle of a story about drones from a Texas media outlet. Here's a snippet, but check out the whole story.

https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Stadium-and-team-owners-see-drones-as-major-12906538.php

The families that own the New York Mets have invested in a Silicon Valley firm, Airspace, that uses artificial-intelligence driven drones that can find and capture other drones. Farzam Kamel, a partner at Sterling VC, an investment arm of the Wilpon and Katz families, said they are working to address the "very rare but devastating threat that can come." "Knock on wood that hasn't really happened in our market or in the U.S. But it would be foolish to think it won't or it can't," Kamel said. Citi Field, home of the Mets, is a good place to demonstrate the technology, Kamel said, given the complex environment and numerous variables at play. It's near LaGuardia airport, so team officials must work closely with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, along with the Federal Aviation Administration. The New York Police Department also is very focused on the issue, given the city's high profile, he said. "So do we wait until something devastating happens before we get realistic about it? Or are we practical and plan accordingly now, so that we can avoid that outcome?" Kamel asked. "Or when something does happen, if it's at a venue that's not deploying a solution that can deal with that threat, at least there's a viable solution out there that can be rapidly deployed across venues when it's needed."

[Ceetar]

Oh good, government empowering rich people to destroy citizens private property in the name of 'safety'.

[Guest 41Forever]

Ceetar wrote: Oh good, government empowering rich people to destroy citizens private property in the name of 'safety'.

I thought it was government working with experts to develop technology so authorities can protect us from people using drones to hurt a stadium full of people.

[Edgy MD]

ceets is trying on his libertarian hat.

[Ceetar]

41Forever wrote: Ceetar wrote: Oh good, government empowering rich people to destroy citizens private property in the name of 'safety'. I thought it was government working with experts to develop technology so authorities can protect us from people using drones to hurt a stadium full of people.

Why bother when they can just walk up with a legal assault rifle and blow them all away anyway?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Why bother trying to cure cancer when not getting cancer will just lead you to die of something else?

[Edgy MD]

And assult rifles aren't legal in New York. State law, in fact, prohibits the manufacture, transport, disposing of, or possession of an assault weapon in the state.

[Ceetar]

I just object to reducing freedoms based on some sort of perceived fear, especially at the outset.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm not sure I see a reduced freedom here, unless it's the freedom to fly a drone over a crowded space. Shouldn't you also have the freedom to prevent a drone from flying over your property? If there was some strange drone flying over my house I would like to have the right to snag it and bring it down.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not sure I see a reduced freedom here, unless it's the freedom to fly a drone over a crowded space. Shouldn't you also have the freedom to prevent a drone from flying over your property? If there was some strange drone flying over my house I would like to have the right to snag it and bring it down.

who says you own the airspace above your house? And how high?

But that's basically it, this is a power play by the rich to control that avenue.

the article is full of suggestions of the reduced freedom, such as the idea that you would be able to track/target your neighbors drone over his own house. Or the government tracking your drone while you're flying it recreationally, just in case you might decide to fly it elsewhere. And not just track, but perhaps intercept not just the drone but the communication. Maybe you're just flying near Citi Field taking pictures of Mets fans with a nice backdrop but this is talking about empowering them to literally snoop on those photos.

[Guest 41Forever]

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not sure I see a reduced freedom here, unless it's the freedom to fly a drone over a crowded space. Shouldn't you also have the freedom to prevent a drone from flying over your property? If there was some strange drone flying over my house I would like to have the right to snag it and bring it down. who says you own the airspace above your house? And how high? But that's basically it, this is a power play by the rich to control that avenue. the article is full of suggestions of the reduced freedom, such as the idea that you would be able to track/target your neighbors drone over his own house. Or the government tracking your drone while you're flying it recreationally, just in case you might decide to fly it elsewhere. And not just track, but perhaps intercept not just the drone but the communication. Maybe you're just flying near Citi Field taking pictures of Mets fans with a nice backdrop but this is talking about empowering them to literally snoop on those photos.

I don't understand the paranoia about people of means, but those are interesting questions, and emerging technology always creates situations that need to be discussed.

How much of the airspace above my house do I own? I sure don't want some drone hovering over my backyard at head-level snapping photos of my kids and into my house. I think that's a fair topic for legislative discussion.

Do I think it's OK for a news station to snap photos above a downtown festival for news value? Seems legit. Do I want someone to be able to bring a drone into Citi and hover over the stands or, given our luck, crash on Noah Syndergaard? Heck, no. Where do I set the line between the two? That's a little harder. Again, a fair topic for reasonable legislators to determine.

[bmfc1]

I thought that this was about former Mets announcer Tom McCarthy's announcing style.