New video shows drone crashing onto roof at Apple Park

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 48
    > Apple Park flyover specialist

    That seems a bit made up.
    macseeker
  • Reply 22 of 48
    mpantone said:
    Roberts flew a DJI Phantom 4 Pro over the campus, eventually discovering the crashed drone wedged in between rooftop solar panels. The craft appears to have been mostly intact, and its owner notified Apple about the incident. So far there's been no sign of a response, which may make the property's return unlikely.

    Apple could potentially crack down on pilots, since a future crash might damage equipment or hit someone walking in the campus courtyard.
    AppleInsider's editorial staff has a dreadfully short memory.

    if Apple does not return the property to the rightful owner, Apple would be in violation of the California law that stipulates that a reasonable attempt to return the property if the owner can be identified. 

    California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 485

    "One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."
    This is the same state law that got Brian Hogan of Redwood City (the finder of a prototype iPhone 4 erroneously left behind in a beer garden) in very hot water and eventually led to the sacking of one of Gizmodo's editorial staffers. Hogan's actions were very dishonest as he did not attempt to do the right thing and turn the phone over to the bar owners; he took the phone home with him.

    My guess is that Hogan's legal fees were far more than a $5000 that Gizmodo paid him for the device.

    "Finders, keepers" is not a valid legal defense in California and Apple would be hypocrites as well as thieves if they do not return the drone.

    The simplest explanation why Apple has not returned the drone to its owner is because it's a three day holiday weekend and no one wants to wreck their weekend plans with this silly nonsense right now. They can make the drone owner worry about it over the long weekend. It's not a lost baby or stray dog.

    California law is hazy about deliberate takedowns of drones. Most of California's drone regulations have to do with invasion of privacy, not about property damage or personal injury.

    One option Apple does have is to encourage the appropriate authorities to file charges against the drone operator for violating federal airspace regulations, most likely a federal felony.

    Of course, Apple could return the drone to its owner along with a bill for solar panel repair.
    Nonsense. That quadrocopter is on Apple’s property, it’s not lost. And there’s also a chance it damaged something when it crashed into their solar array. The “pilot” also may have violated FAA regulations by flying this device out of range of eyesight.
    edited February 2018 ronnradarthekat
  • Reply 23 of 48
    dsddsd Posts: 186member
    It means they finally filled the pond.


    zroger73radarthekatwatto_cobrabestkeptsecret
  • Reply 24 of 48
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,035member
    I wonder if Apple are emitting a drone-killing signal?
     
    Yeah it's called the Tesla death ray.

    If people keep doing stuff like this we'll begin seeding more and more laws which restricts how these devices can be used.


    ronn
  • Reply 25 of 48
    ronnronn Posts: 507member
    mpantone said:
    Roberts flew a DJI Phantom 4 Pro over the campus, eventually discovering the crashed drone wedged in between rooftop solar panels. The craft appears to have been mostly intact, and its owner notified Apple about the incident. So far there's been no sign of a response, which may make the property's return unlikely.

    Apple could potentially crack down on pilots, since a future crash might damage equipment or hit someone walking in the campus courtyard.
    AppleInsider's editorial staff has a dreadfully short memory.

    if Apple does not return the property to the rightful owner, Apple would be in violation of the California law that stipulates that a reasonable attempt to return the property if the owner can be identified. 

    California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 485

    "One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."
    This is the same state law that got Brian Hogan of Redwood City (the finder of a prototype iPhone 4 erroneously left behind in a beer garden) in very hot water and eventually led to the sacking of one of Gizmodo's editorial staffers. Hogan's actions were very dishonest as he did not attempt to do the right thing and turn the phone over to the bar owners; he took the phone home with him.

    My guess is that Hogan's legal fees were far more than a $5000 that Gizmodo paid him for the device.

    "Finders, keepers" is not a valid legal defense in California and Apple would be hypocrites as well as thieves if they do not return the drone.

    The simplest explanation why Apple has not returned the drone to its owner is because it's a three day holiday weekend and no one wants to wreck their weekend plans with this silly nonsense right now. They can make the drone owner worry about it over the long weekend. It's not a lost baby or stray dog.

    California law is hazy about deliberate takedowns of drones. Most of California's drone regulations have to do with invasion of privacy, not about property damage or personal injury.

    One option Apple does have is to encourage the appropriate authorities to file charges against the drone operator for violating federal airspace regulations, most likely a federal felony.

    Of course, Apple could return the drone to its owner along with a bill for solar panel repair.

    Screw that. Apple is under no obligation to rush to return this drone. The irresponsible owner would have to prove it's theirs. And from the photo, it appears to be not easily retrievable. Apple shouldn't risk injury to workers or damage to their property because of this idiot. Make him sue to get his info and hand him a large bill for retrieval. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 48
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    They nuke drones from orbit... Just to be sure.

    They're just tactical nukes, so hey, nothing to worry about, y'all will be fine ;-).
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 48
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 708member
    pembroke said:
    I know little about drones. If they lose proper operational control, do they emit some sort of warning noise in case they plummet to the ground?
    No, the pilot does. Usually sounds like "oooooooh sh..."
    Accompanied by a low moan from the direction of their wallet. 
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 48
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,606member
    mpantone said:
    Roberts flew a DJI Phantom 4 Pro over the campus, eventually discovering the crashed drone wedged in between rooftop solar panels. The craft appears to have been mostly intact, and its owner notified Apple about the incident. So far there's been no sign of a response, which may make the property's return unlikely.

    Apple could potentially crack down on pilots, since a future crash might damage equipment or hit someone walking in the campus courtyard.
    AppleInsider's editorial staff has a dreadfully short memory.

    if Apple does not return the property to the rightful owner, Apple would be in violation of the California law that stipulates that a reasonable attempt to return the property if the owner can be identified. 

    California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 485

    "One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."
    This is the same state law that got Brian Hogan of Redwood City (the finder of a prototype iPhone 4 erroneously left behind in a beer garden) in very hot water and eventually led to the sacking of one of Gizmodo's editorial staffers. Hogan's actions were very dishonest as he did not attempt to do the right thing and turn the phone over to the bar owners; he took the phone home with him.

    My guess is that Hogan's legal fees were far more than a $5000 that Gizmodo paid him for the device.

    "Finders, keepers" is not a valid legal defense in California and Apple would be hypocrites as well as thieves if they do not return the drone.

    The simplest explanation why Apple has not returned the drone to its owner is because it's a three day holiday weekend and no one wants to wreck their weekend plans with this silly nonsense right now. They can make the drone owner worry about it over the long weekend. It's not a lost baby or stray dog.

    California law is hazy about deliberate takedowns of drones. Most of California's drone regulations have to do with invasion of privacy, not about property damage or personal injury.

    One option Apple does have is to encourage the appropriate authorities to file charges against the drone operator for violating federal airspace regulations, most likely a federal felony.

    Of course, Apple could return the drone to its owner along with a bill for solar panel repair.
    But right now Apple is not in possession of the drone. And may not be for a while. It's on their property but it may be unacessable to any of Apple employees. What responsibility does Apple have in retrieving it for the owner? What if retrieving it requires hiring a contractor with special equipment and training to get to it? If I were Apple and the drone poses no immediate hazard, I would just leave it there and maybe fetch and return it when the solar panel contractors do their annual inspection and cleaning. Which may be next year sometime. Unless the owner is willing to pay the contractor Apple uses to maintain their solar panels, to retrieve it.

    This is different from the guy that found the prototype iPhone. In that case, the owner of the bar actually had the lost iPhone in his hands and could have returned it. That's not the case here. 

    If I had a 40 foot tree on my property and a drone crashed on top of it and its now stuck up there, do I have to allow the owner of the drone on to my property to fetch it? I'm not going to fetch it, I don't think I have to legally fetch for the owner and I don't think I would allow the owner to climb 40 feet up my tree, on my property to fetch it. What if he fell and hurt himself? It would be unreasonable to require me to retrieve it and hand it over to him. Now if it fell down later on its own, during a storm, then I would return it. He can't claim that I'm breaking the law by not returning his property, when his property is unacessable to me, even though its on my property.
    ronnradarthekatcolinng
  • Reply 29 of 48
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,843member
    ronn said:
    Screw that. Apple is under no obligation to rush to return this drone. The irresponsible owner would have to prove it's theirs. And from the photo, it appears to be not easily retrievable. Apple shouldn't risk injury to workers or damage to their property because of this idiot. Make him sue to get his info and hand him a large bill for retrieval. 
    Nonsense. That quadrocopter is on Apple’s property, it’s not lost. And there’s also a chance it damaged something when it crashed into their solar array. The “pilot” also may have violated FAA regulations by flying this device out of range of eyesight.
    Sorry guys, your "this happened on my property so nyah" attitude is irrelevant and not a valid defense in California.

    The California law on this matter is quite explicit about the matter. You cannot appropriate someone else's property if you do not make a reasonable attempt at returning the property to its rightful owner. In this case, the drone operator has already contacted Apple; Apple can't make up any excuse saying "We don't know whose it is."

    Apple does not have any legal power to mete out punishment to the drone operator. If they want to go after the drone operator, it will have to be through proper legal channels, not some sort of immature renegade vengeance tantrum.

    Now the FAA might be able to seize the drone if they go after the operator for violating federal airspace laws, but Apple does not have any right to withhold the item. The county might be able to seize the drone if they decided to prosecute the operator for trespassing, but I have not heard of such litigation involving drones here in California.

    If you don't like California law, then stay away from this state or get the law changed. (My guess is that many other states have similar laws.)

    I'm not defending the errant drone operator, just quoting California legal code.
    edited February 2018
  • Reply 30 of 48
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,843member
    davidw said:
    But right now Apple is not in possession of the drone. And may not be for a while. It's on their property but it may be unacessable to any of Apple employees. What responsibility does Apple have in retrieving it for the owner? What if retrieving it requires hiring a contractor with special equipment and training to get to it? If I were Apple and the drone poses no immediate hazard, I would just leave it there and maybe fetch and return it when the solar panel contractors do their annual inspection and cleaning. Which may be next year sometime. Unless the owner is willing to pay the contractor Apple uses to maintain their solar panels, to retrieve it.


    This is different from the guy that found the prototype iPhone. In that case, the owner of the bar actually had the lost iPhone in his hands and could have returned it. That's not the case here. 

    If I had a 40 foot tree on my property and a drone crashed on top of it and its now stuck up there, do I have to allow the owner of the drone on to my property to fetch it? I'm not going to fetch it, I don't think I have to legally fetch for the owner and I don't think I would allow the owner to climb 40 feet up my tree, on my property to fetch it. What if he fell and hurt himself? It would be unreasonable to require me to retrieve it and hand it over to him. Now if it fell down later on its own, during a storm, then I would return it. He can't claim that I'm breaking the law by not returning his property, when his property is unacessable to me, even though its on my property.
    It is true that Apple could simply leave it on the roof and say something like "for safety reasons, no Apple employee is certified to access the roof", and let the elements slowly deteriorate the errant drone. At some point, when the solar panels are accessed, they would still be legally obligated to return the device to its owner, even if it were no longer in operational condition.

    It may already be damaged beyond repair, but it is not Apple's right to decide whether or not to trash the item. The California law does not provide exceptions if the property is damaged. It is still the property of the original owner, regardless of its condition.

    They do have the option of inaction at this time.

    They could also make an effort to recover it and bill the owner back for recovery charges (e.g., rental of cherry picker) as well as any sort of fees for the solar panel installer (e.g., inspection and testing of solar panel grid due to possible impact damage). It is highly possible that the drone bounced on several panels before coming to its final resting place, so multiple panels would require inspection.

    My gut feeling is that Apple will take some action in the near future. Leaving the drone on the roof will not be publicity that benefits Apple.

    The missing iPhone 4 prototype was a different scenario and your summary is incorrect. The device was mistakenly left behind at the beer garden by an Apple engineer. A guy named Brian Hogan found the iPhone 4 prototype did not turn it back to the bar owners which would have been the wisest/honest thing to do (the bar owners never had possession of the device) nor did he make any reasonable attempt at finding the rightful owner. The Apple engineer came back to the bar numerous times to check to see if the device had been returned or located by the restaurant employees which it never happened.

    That's what landed that guy into big trouble, the same California law I quoted above. He didn't spend any time behind bars but he did end up doing 40 hours of community service, paying a $125 fine and on probation for a year.

    Hogan stupidly sold the phone for $5000 to Gizmodo. Eventually Apple got their prototype back but Hogan's family had to flee Redwood City, a Gizmodo writer got fired and most likely Hogan and the Gizmodo guy ended up shelling out a lot of money for legal fees.
    edited February 2018
  • Reply 31 of 48
    ronnronn Posts: 507member
    mpantone said:
    ronn said:
    Screw that. Apple is under no obligation to rush to return this drone. The irresponsible owner would have to prove it's theirs. And from the photo, it appears to be not easily retrievable. Apple shouldn't risk injury to workers or damage to their property because of this idiot. Make him sue to get his info and hand him a large bill for retrieval. 
    Nonsense. That quadrocopter is on Apple’s property, it’s not lost. And there’s also a chance it damaged something when it crashed into their solar array. The “pilot” also may have violated FAA regulations by flying this device out of range of eyesight.
    Sorry guys, your "this happened on my property so nyah" attitude is irrelevant and not a valid defense in California.

    The California law on this matter is quite explicit about the matter. You cannot appropriate someone else's property if you do not make a reasonable attempt at returning the property to its rightful owner. In this case, the drone operator has already contacted Apple; Apple can't make up any excuse saying "We don't know whose it is."

    Apple does not have any legal power to mete out punishment to the drone operator. If they want to go after the drone operator, it will have to be through proper legal channels, not some sort of immature renegade vengeance tantrum.

    Now the FAA might be able to seize the drone if they go after the operator for violating federal airspace laws, but Apple does not have any right to withhold the item. The county might be able to seize the drone if they decided to prosecute the operator for trespassing, but I have not heard of such litigation involving drones here in California.

    If you don't like California law, then stay away from this state or get the law changed. (My guess is that many other states have similar laws.)

    I'm not defending the errant drone operator, just quoting California legal code.
    It's not about "this happened on my property" in the sense that Apple has no obligation to retrieve property at the risk of its employees and/or contractors. First, the drone owner has to make a definitive request. Simply calling Apple and claiming you're the owner is insufficient. Did he provide proof that he's the owner? Did the drone have markings showing he's the owner? He clearly didn't have permission to fly over Apple Park and therefore may be in violation of California's  privacy law. Is Apple forced to reward his possible violation/crime? The law you cited "stipulates that a reasonable attempt to return the property if the owner can be identified." What's reasonable in this instance? The crash site doesn't appear to an easily accessible area and would probably require coordination and possibly a contractor if the roof isn't regularly accessed -- someone else mentioned that maybe cleaning is done on a schedule, so maybe no one is scheduled to access the roof any time soon.
  • Reply 32 of 48
    Seems like there is a crawl space under the solar panels so getting the drone wouldn't be so hard.  Hopefully the drone owner has affixed the FAA registration number to the drone.  If not, Apple would turn it in to the local law authorities.  Then the owner will have to show proof that they are the owner of the found drone on the roof.

    This is going to be one teachable lesson to the drone operator.
  • Reply 33 of 48
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,983member
    davidw said:
    mpantone said:
    Roberts flew a DJI Phantom 4 Pro over the campus, eventually discovering the crashed drone wedged in between rooftop solar panels. The craft appears to have been mostly intact, and its owner notified Apple about the incident. So far there's been no sign of a response, which may make the property's return unlikely.

    Apple could potentially crack down on pilots, since a future crash might damage equipment or hit someone walking in the campus courtyard.
    AppleInsider's editorial staff has a dreadfully short memory.

    ...
    Of course, Apple could return the drone to its owner along with a bill for solar panel repair.
    But right now Apple is not in possession of the drone. And may not be for a while. It's on their property but it may be unacessable to any of Apple employees. What responsibility does Apple have in retrieving it for the owner? What if retrieving it requires hiring a contractor with special equipment and training to get to it? If I were Apple and the drone poses no immediate hazard, I would just leave it there and maybe fetch and return it when the solar panel contractors do their annual inspection and cleaning. Which may be next year sometime. Unless the owner is willing to pay the contractor Apple uses to maintain their solar panels, to retrieve it.

    This is different from the guy that found the prototype iPhone. In that case, the owner of the bar actually had the lost iPhone in his hands and could have returned it. That's not the case here. 

    If I had a 40 foot tree on my property and a drone crashed on top of it and its now stuck up there, do I have to allow the owner of the drone on to my property to fetch it? I'm not going to fetch it, I don't think I have to legally fetch for the owner and I don't think I would allow the owner to climb 40 feet up my tree, on my property to fetch it. What if he fell and hurt himself? It would be unreasonable to require me to retrieve it and hand it over to him. Now if it fell down later on its own, during a storm, then I would return it. He can't claim that I'm breaking the law by not returning his property, when his property is unacessable to me, even though its on my property.
    How do you know Apple hasn't already retrieved it? When the solar panels were being installed I remember seeing a sliding mechanism that would allow cleaning and repair access to all the solar panels. It wouldn't make sense not to have something like this.
  • Reply 34 of 48
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,843member
    ronn said:
    It's not about "this happened on my property" in the sense that Apple has no obligation to retrieve property at the risk of its employees and/or contractors. First, the drone owner has to make a definitive request. Simply calling Apple and claiming you're the owner is insufficient. Did he provide proof that he's the owner? Did the drone have markings showing he's the owner? He clearly didn't have permission to fly over Apple Park and therefore may be in violation of California's  privacy law. Is Apple forced to reward his possible violation/crime? The law you cited "stipulates that a
    reasonable attempt to return the property if the owner can be identified." What's reasonable in this instance? The crash site doesn't appear to an easily accessible area and would probably require coordination and possibly a contractor if the roof isn't regularly accessed -- someone else mentioned that maybe cleaning is done on a schedule, so maybe no one is scheduled to access the roof any time soon.
    The errant drone operator has footage of the failed flight on the DJI app and has posted it online. That alone is probably sufficient evidence in a court of law.

    Also, the errant drone operator contacted another drone operator for assistance in locating the wreckage. The errant drone operator already contacted Apple. How would any random person know that a drone crashed on Apple Park's solar panel roof? It is 100 feet high and not visible from any nearby structures and certainly not from the ground.

    There would be a serial number, some sort of registration/pairing procedure between the phone and drone tying the two together. The owner probably has the receipt from the purchase for warranty purposes. Heck, maybe he still has the original packaging with the serial number on the outside of the box.

    There are lots of ways for the legitimate owner to prove ownership so it's mystifying why you fixated on that.

    Don't confuse the drone privacy law with the one about returning property. Those are separate laws and the authorities would need to file separate charges. Perhaps other laws were violated. It would be up to the authorities in question to pursue some, all, or even none of these. Federal charges would not be handled by the county judicial system; those would be handled by the federal judicial system.

    Again Apple has no legal power to enforce the law and run their own informal trial. It sounds like you need a refresher on civics in the USA and the separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial). Apple cannot start deputizing random employees and take justice into its own hands. Google can't do that, Facebook can't do that, the bakery down the road can't do that.

    If the errant drone operator violated any laws, it's the judicial system that will decide those matters. Apple does not have any right to go on some completely illegal vigilante justice tear. You and a few others may think Apple does, but you are wrong.

    Indignation does not empower you, Apple or anyone else to make up your own laws concerning such matters.
    edited February 2018
  • Reply 35 of 48
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,983member
    Check out http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/air-space-map/ Apple Park, especially the Power Plant to the south is within 5 miles of an airport, therefore it has restrictions including informing the FAA before flying. It's not considered a Prohibited or Restricted airspace and might never be because this restriction is generally for government areas (Washington DC). I would like to know if the pilot of the crashed drone had signed up for this drone license. I am certain the other pilot has.

    https://www.faa.gov/uas/
    more rules https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/part_107/

    "Fly your drone at or below 400 feet" which is the requirement described in these maps.
    "Respect privacy" which drone pilots are not doing because Apple Park is a private area (just because it's publicly traded doesn't mean it doesn't fall under privacy laws)


  • Reply 36 of 48
    While it is Apple's responsibility to return the drone, it is not their responsibility to bear the cost of return. Dislodging it from their solar panel array is not free.

    A few other things:
    • It's trivial for Apple to recoup damages caused by the drone.
    • Since the operator 'lost' the drone, they were likely not following FAA regulation requiring visual line of sight with the device at all times. (I.e. Not with binoculars or digital displays etc. The most the FAA allow for are standard corrective lenses.)
    • Following AMA guidelines, now that the building is occupied all drone operators cannot reasonably expect to be within a safe distance from staff.
    • Since 2015, California civil code does not allow drones to take images of a person without their explicit consent. (1708.8)
    • If the user had intentions to sell this footage to media outlets, then the operator has significantly higher restrictions than those already listed here.
    And while conspiracy theories are fun, jammed signals don't send drones tumbling out of the air (they maintain position or return home when connection is lost), also this would require illegal activity from Apple that would endanger their staff and building. Rather it was most likely a failure similar to the issues which had affected the DJI Spark drones.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 37 of 48
    ronnronn Posts: 507member
    mpantone said:
    ronn said:
    It's not about "this happened on my property" in the sense that Apple has no obligation to retrieve property at the risk of its employees and/or contractors. First, the drone owner has to make a definitive request. Simply calling Apple and claiming you're the owner is insufficient. Did he provide proof that he's the owner? Did the drone have markings showing he's the owner? He clearly didn't have permission to fly over Apple Park and therefore may be in violation of California's  privacy law. Is Apple forced to reward his possible violation/crime? The law you cited "stipulates that a
    reasonable attempt to return the property if the owner can be identified." What's reasonable in this instance? The crash site doesn't appear to an easily accessible area and would probably require coordination and possibly a contractor if the roof isn't regularly accessed -- someone else mentioned that maybe cleaning is done on a schedule, so maybe no one is scheduled to access the roof any time soon.
    The errant drone operator has footage of the failed flight on the DJI app and has posted it online. That alone is probably sufficient evidence in a court of law.

    Also, the errant drone operator contacted another drone operator for assistance in locating the wreckage. The errant drone operator already contacted Apple. How would any random person know that a drone crashed on Apple Park's solar panel roof? It is 100 feet high and not visible from any nearby structures and certainly not from the ground.

    There would be a serial number, some sort of registration/pairing procedure between the phone and drone tying the two together. The owner probably has the receipt from the purchase for warranty purposes. Heck, maybe he still has the original packaging with the serial number on the outside of the box.

    There are lots of ways for the legitimate owner to prove ownership so it's mystifying why you fixated on that.

    Don't confuse the drone privacy law with the one about returning property. Those are separate laws and the authorities would need to file separate charges. Perhaps other laws were violated. It would be up to the authorities in question to pursue some, all, or even none of these. Federal charges would not be handled by the county judicial system; those would be handled by the federal judicial system.

    Again Apple has no legal power to enforce the law and run their own informal trial. It sounds like you need a refresher on civics in the USA and the separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial). Apple cannot start deputizing random employees and take justice into its own hands. Google can't do that, Facebook can't do that, the bakery down the road can't do that.

    If the errant drone operator violated any laws, it's the judicial system that will decide those matters. Apple does not have any right to go on some completely illegal vigilante justice tear. You and a few others may think Apple does, but you are wrong.

    Indignation does not empower you, Apple or anyone else to make up your own laws concerning such matters.
    You’re making the ASSumption that Apple will not return the drone and will be a hypocrite because of criminal acts perpetrated by others against it years ago. Apple is under no obligation to rush to return this drone to someone claiming to be the owner. If the idiot feels Apple is committing a crime, he’s free to file a complaint. I don’t feel his chances for a speedy return will be forthcoming. Apple will act in its best interest, not the errant drone operator’s. It has nothing to do with being a vigilante and is nonsense to even bring it into play. 
  • Reply 38 of 48
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,843member
    ronn said:
    You’re making the ASSumption that Apple will not return the drone and will be a hypocrite because of criminal acts perpetrated by others against it years ago. Apple is under no obligation to rush to return this drone to someone claiming to be the owner. If the idiot feels Apple is committing a crime, he’s free to file a complaint. I don’t feel his chances for a speedy return will be forthcoming. Apple will act in its best interest, not the errant drone operator’s. It has nothing to do with being a vigilante and is nonsense to even bring it into play. 
    Quite the opposite, I am assuming that Apple will eventually return the drone to the rightful owner. It will happen probably sooner rather than later because this type of story does not benefit Apple. This story detracts from the type of discussion Apple favors: conversation about their products and services.

     Remember, you are the one who took the vigilante stance. Do you forget what you wrote? 

     "Screw that. Apple is under no obligation to rush to return this drone. The irresponsible owner would have to prove it's theirs. And from the photo, it appears to be not easily retrievable. Apple shouldn't risk injury to workers or damage to their property because of this idiot. Make him sue to get his info and hand him a large bill for retrieval."

    Everything you have written takes defiant, indignant, vigilante stance. It is also clear that you do not respect/understand the law nor do you remember how the judicial system works.

    Anyhow, have a wonderful day!

     :) 
    edited February 2018
  • Reply 39 of 48
    ronnronn Posts: 507member
    mpantone said:

     Remember, you are the one who took the vigilante stance. Do you forget what you wrote? 

     "Screw that. Apple is under no obligation to rush to return this drone. The irresponsible owner would have to prove it's theirs. And from the photo, it appears to be not easily retrievable. Apple shouldn't risk injury to workers or damage to their property because of this idiot. Make him sue to get his info and hand him a large bill for retrieval."

    Everything you have written takes defiant, indignant, vigilante stance. It is also clear that you do not respect/understand the law nor do you remember how the judicial system works.

    Pity.
    You are full of it. That in no way advocated vigilantism. I simply stated Apple has no  obligation to rush to return the drone before the owner proves they are the owner. And it has every reason to take care that it’s workers and/or contractors are not harmed in retrieving the drone if it’s not easily accessible. They have every right to sue for damages and costs incurred by this idiot’s actions. You probably should look up the word vigilante before using it so horribly. 
  • Reply 40 of 48
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,840member
    zroger73 said:
    Now, apply this to self-driving cars. Sure, there will be failures, injuries, and deaths, but I'll bet the number of crashes resulting from human error will be far greater.

    Self-driving cars don't fall asleep, drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol, faint due to medical conditions, text, eat, talk, apply makeup, try to beat red lights, speed, or turn around swatting unruly children (or spouses) in the back seat like human drivers do.
    No, they just drive into the sides of semis when conditions aren't right, or the program for that variation hasn't been written yet.

    mpantone said:
    Google -- among other companies -- has been testing autonomous vehicles on SF Bay Area public roads for years. They are certainly safer than a car being driven by a teenager with a brand new driver's license.

    This technology still has a way to go before it will be commercially deployed but for certain, its arrival will be inevitable so try to get used to the idea. 
    I'm not sure that's saying a whole lot, heh... but yea, they seem even worse than that. What is it, 20 mph max?

    And... until the unanticipated happens, and then they aren't. But, you're probably right that they will be inevitably be pushed into action, laws rammed through, etc. no matter if they really work well or not. That seems to be the way of 'progress' these days (science and reality be damed).

    macseeker said:
    Here are some videos of drones hitting people from YouTube.
    I guess most of them are pretty light, so it would be more cuts and stuff. But, I think if they fell from a good distance while crashing, or were in a dive and didn't pull out, etc. they could hurt someone quite bad. And, then there are bigger ones that probably do have some weight. 

    mpantone said:
    Everything you have written takes defiant, indignant, vigilante stance. It is also clear that you do not respect/understand the law nor do you remember how the judicial system works.
    That's a vigilante response??? No, that would have been Tim up on the roof getting in a little skeet practice. :)
    ronn
Sign In or Register to comment.