Somehow, the news process for "newsworthy" events has managed to survive with helicopters. But what about any jerk who wants to fly one over my property? What about burglars who want to case the joint? Or stalkers?
And lets not forget that drones are able to access places that helicopters cannot.
There is no way that a law can say well, "news organizations" are professional so they should be exempt from the ban that applies to private citizens. (As I have often observed here on FR, from a Constitutional perspective, there is no such thing as "The Press" as some sort of elite group that is afforded special legal privileges that are unavailable to normal citizens.
Besides, look ahead say, 20-30 years, when the novelty of drones has worn off, the price has come way down, and the sky is blackened by a traffic jam of private drones overhead operated by God knows who.
Imagine the risk to life and property of drones falling out of the sky because of mechanical malfunction or human error. Not to mention malicious terrorist activity.
Imagine every commercial establishment doing drone delivery as part of normal operations, and think about what that would actually be like.
None of this bothers you?
Of course it bothers me. I said so up front. My questions were not posed based on my feelings. I was simply interested in the implications of your statement about using drones without a warrant and the related restrictions it might inherently impose elsewhere.
All of your points are good ones and I agree with you. See #49.
What are the chances of a drone filled with explosives crashing into your house, my house, or the white house? I think that day has come. Or am I a little nuts to think that way.