• @SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      105 months ago

      Seems these systems don’t need to shoot. It has interceptor drones. These can fly into the spy drone, so the rich guy can just claim it was a mid-air collision and offer to pay back the owner if they just identify themselves.

    • Mellow
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 months ago

      What about international waters 3+ miles off the coast?

    • @atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 months ago

      The thing is though, if a drone is spying on you the police have to do something about it. And if they can’t or won’t then you document everything and when they show up saying you did something, you tell them “so you found the guy who’s been stalking me via drone?” /S for obvious reasons, but these laws are going to have to change sooner rather than later because there’s a lot going on that technically isn’t legal with drones but can’t be prosecuted by the legal system because of this law.

      Add that to the military airspace drones keep violating (not under FAA jurisdiction) and eventually this is going to be a problem that the government can’t ignore.

    • @silence7@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 months ago

      They do occasionally enforce the signal jamming laws. Do it with any regularity in a way that messes up police radio, and they will work to catch you.

  • @MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    37
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    that quarter-billion dollar-plus superyachts, and the VIPs who own and cruise in them, may be vulnerable.

    Then don’t cruise in them but instead sit in a bunker like you deserve or alternatively, don’t be a rich shoddy.

      • plz1
        link
        fedilink
        English
        325 months ago

        “Privacy for me, not for thee” means I, as a non-billionaire, get my privacy back before I give one iota about some billionaire not being able to hide a mistress on his super yacht.

          • plz1
            link
            fedilink
            English
            35 months ago

            Calling her a cleaning lady seems more degrading than the situation is, to me.

      • @RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        125 months ago

        And the billionaires like Zuckerberg that make a lot of money trying to track you everywhere you go on the internet or with your cellphone factor into that statement where?

          • @aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            When anyone else has an actual right to privacy I’ll give a shit about Zuckerberg’s – who btw has done more to destroy privacy rights than perhaps any other human being in history – “right to privacy”.

            • @VintageGenious@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -15 months ago

              I know who he his 🙄 It doen’t change the fact that equalling all rich people to bad people is counterproductive. And human rights apply to all humans, except if what you mean by the lack of privacy ls that he should go to prision, to which I agree

              • @aesthelete@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                15 months ago

                Except the right to privacy isn’t an enshrined human right at all and this particular asshole would lobby government to make sure that any effort to make it one would fall flat.

  • JackFrostNCola
    link
    fedilink
    English
    145 months ago

    Is this a “drones are coming to harm us” thing or a “paparazzi drones are taking pictures/videos where we thought we were out of sight” thing?

    • @SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      125 months ago

      It’s partly “in case we’re deciding to be idiots and go to active war zones” stuff, but I see those rich fucks using military level weapons against civilian drones because they can afford to act above the law.

    • @cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25 months ago

      https://x.com/Zlatti_71/status/1841588202270031921?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1841588202270031921%7Ctwgr%5E37a77d031ffe0ada2f471370ee71a40088b83304%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.twz.com%2Fsea%2Ftheres-a-growing-market-for-counter-drone-systems-for-superyachts

  • @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    85 months ago

    I’m not surprised. Ukraine has taught us that drones can be a cheap and shockingly effective attack vector for ships.

    If you find out that for $200 or often less you can remotely deploy a drone that sinks a ship, you’re obviously going to look into defensive measures.

    • @rbesfe@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55 months ago

      The drones attacking ships in Ukraine are boats loaded with explosives, and they cost much more than $200

    • @overload@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      45 months ago

      That was really interesting.

      I’ve got to admit that I felt that elation/rush that they felt when finishing off that guy on the field.

      Horrible that the Russian is probably just a normal guy, but they are the invading force attacking a sovereign nation.

  • @werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25 months ago

    What about under water drones where the payload floats to your hull instead if dropping from the sky?

    Gotta get serious about yacht safety if you wanna do all those wonderful pornhub things in international waters.