The moment a new technology emerges there will be noisy group of luddites (concerned citizens) that will be worried about what "might" happen, demanding laws to protect them from the hideous figments of their imagination.

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2014/07/inquiry-unmanned-aircraft-calls-new-laws/

The typical scenario is that these luddites will try and apply so many restrictions, licensing requirements, etc that it will thousands to buy and run a $500 drone.

One can only remember the shrieking when GM food came on the market, the bans and moratoriums, and the complete lack of any of the dire consequences about which we had been continuously warned.

My proposal as a rationalist is: Lets see how it goes, and if there are any breaches, we address them then.

So true Shadow Minister. The luddite socialists just hate new technology, unless it can further their agenda.

Dear Lester,

It's not the "socialists" who are against
Science and "New Technology" (such as
Renewable energy), and they're not the ones
cutting back on education either.

But then don't let facts interfere with
your spin!

Shadow Minister just proved you wrong Foxy. When GM food technology was proposed and first came on the market the Western socialists were jumping up and down telling us the world was now doomed. And look what happened, NOTHING.

Dear Lester,

You must deal with facts not innuendo.
Try again!

Are you denying that GM technology exists? That GM foods came onto the market? That the Western socialists opposed GM technology and issued warnings about it? Foxy, are you living in a parallel universe?

Foxy,

The greens are the biggest luddites. The only technology they accept is renewable generation which has been around for decades, and even then god forbid if anyone should put a wind turbine anywhere near them.

Dear Lester,

We're obviously living in different realities.
Obviously!

Australia is one of the standout countries in terms
of its science. It's science is world class.
None of this matters.
New ideas instead of being welcomed for the
opportunities they open up for the improvement of
the human lot, are looked upon as threats.
Little has changed over the years -
when ignorance and vested interests are confronted by
scientific facts.

One perfect example is an Australian whose ideas were
rejected in this country so seven years ago he went to
California and now he has a multi-million dollar
business and his services are in demand all over the
state with the likelihood of expanding to other states.
His product is solar-power. In this country the government
prefers tree-planting - while at the same time allowing
the forests of Tasmania to be razed for wood-chipping.
And there are many inventions that have been successful
overseas , invented by Australians - but were rejected
in this country.

So much for supporting "new ideas" and "New technology"
And don't blame it on the "socialists!

SM the article you linked to suggested it was the professional operators worried about "recreational and uncertified commercial users" and that the professionals were the ones keen to access and comply with regulations. Other than common sense rules I suspect that those with most to gain from tight rules are those making money from the things, if they can get the red tape tight enough for others then you will have to hire them rather than DIY.

There are real issues but I suspect mostly from the power they give to government when combined with a range of other rapidly developing technologies. Extra regulations can expand to meet the ability of government to detect (and fine for) breaches.

There will be some issues that they should ensure are adequately covered by existing laws at the moment around privacy as a quiet low level flying device changes the rules a lot in regard to the places where we might otherwise have a sense of privacy.

I suspect most of us would be less than happy to find a snoopy neighbor using one to film around our yards or through windows etc. I've not thought to much about the safety aspect but the likely use of the drones is likely to be very different to the way model aircraft have generally been used with a higher risk of harm to others.

R0bert

What the hell has GM technology got to do with drones?
Watch the drones and be scared.
I have one and it saves me heaps in surveillance man-hours and is fully evidential in court.
They may be immoral but they are here to stay and they are getting smaller and smarter..

There are many jobs performed by men (strangely, there are very few women volunteering to take the dirty, dangerous and disgusting jobs traditionally done by men) where drones could reduce cost and injury.

There needs to be a Standard and rules for operation. The practical guys who would be involved in sorting it out can usually be trusted to know where to concentrate and when to stop. That is as long as the generalist graduate public service bureaucrats don't get in the road.

I could do with a drone to monitor the drones who lift my crab pots by mistake.

I don't object to drones flying over my place and filming my activities
providing that the law allows me to shoot down such drones.

The scare campaign is without foundation, things depicted on this obviously faked video just can't happen in Australia, the gun laws would stop it because criminals and terrorists can't get guns without a licence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU

and here's another one, with a pistol for armament
http://io9.com/this-video-of-a-drone-with-a-gun-will-freak-you-the-hel-513442074

Just think of the possibilities!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/04/video-shows-drone-flying-through-fireworks/

Is Mise,
Yep, firearms laws will stop most from having fun, but some smarty will develop a way to override the controls and bring it down for their own use.

I have emergency & general aviation helicopters flying over my place a few times a day, any of then, with even reasonable cameras could film any of my activities, if my activities were ever worth filming. As this is highly unlikely to be the case, I have no fear of drones, & neither should any law abiding citizen.

Hell just a slightly better version of Google earth photos, [readily available to authorities], would tell them all they need to know about anyone of interest.

Talk about storm in a teacup.

"the gun laws would stop it because criminals and terrorists can't get guns without a licence"

LOL, dry wit. A sarcasm alert is needed for the hoplophobic gun control nuts who believe the 'gun control' spin contrary to the evidence before them.

The criminal gangs who manufacture and deal in illicit drugs and are responsible for almost all of Australia's violent crime and standover tactics already have heaps of video cameras and other surveillance surprises including man traps for anyone with cause to wonder what they are up to. It is only fair that the authorities use a drone in response to detect criminal activity and save lives in the process.

The concern is about what private drones may be uused for and whilst the law abiding should have nothing to fear, conversely they should not be subject to spying.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/drones-to-fight-fires-20130903-2t3bd.html

"They prefer the term Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to the more sinister sounding ''drone''. But the Metropolitan Fire Brigade has announced it will from now on use the high-tech flying objects, dubbed CQ1 and CQ2, to monitor fires and major incidents.

In a 12-month pilot, two remote controlled, quad-rotor miniature aircraft armed with cameras will be be sent to take bird's-eye footage of emergency incidents across Melbourne. They will transmit real-time images to incident controllers at emergency scenes."

Unfortunately they can also be used to start fires.

Controls will be needed, if a Zimmerstutzen needs to be licenced because of the perceived threat to society then also these drones need to be regulated as they pose a far greater threat.

onthebeach,
More rules and regulations.
We need less control and more freedoms.

There are already laws against peeping toms that can be enforced against drones. Drones are not silent nor invisible, and Peeping tom drone operators are unlikely to be difficult to detect or trace.

This is not a threat that requires a scare campaign.

Like all new technology drones have great potential for good but also some very serous potential for harm and therefore require regulation. It is not about freedom it is about protecting people from harm. There are several issues that have already arisen.
A few examples below are:-

1 A drone in the hands of a technically savvy terrorist or even a smart crook has some very scary implications.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/31/criminals-and-terrorists-can-fly-drones-too/

2 The issue of airspace use, there have been cases of airliners having to take evasive measures to avoid drones.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/faa-u-s-airliner-nearly-collided-with-drone-in-march-1399659956

3 Use of spying on others
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/04/drone-regulations_n_3704307.html

4 liability in the case of an accident
http://www.fastcompany.com/3028781/what-happens-when-a-drone-crashes

5 Being flown by people with no idea of existing regulations and incompetent in controlling and navigating the machines. As an analogy can you imagine the chaos that would ensue, if large remote cars were allowed on the road with no way of knowing who was controlling them.
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/06/06/what-i-learned-flying-a-drone/

6 Inadequate Maintenance, there have been plenty of people killed by out of control model aircraft.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-177139/Teenager-killed-hit-model-plane.html
http://droneflyers.com/2013/03/ar-drone-maintenance/

7 Faulty sofware leading to loss of control.
http://forum.parrot.com/ardrone/en/viewtopic.php?id=8262

The bottom line is that unregulated objects hurtling around the sky are a hazard that must be regulated.

Most drones likely to be used by hobbyists are small, slow moving and have a limited range and are unlikely to create any hazard that you described. larger drones that have the speed and weight to injure or damage people are like model aircraft should comply to those regulations.

warmair,
Move to Russia they love your kind and take your rules with you. Next thing you'll want is registration for kite fliers.

The problem is you can fit what is called First Person View equipment to most model aircraft or even complete autonomous gear. Models are available from the hobby shops on the internet that weigh in at over 15kg and fitted with model turbine engines are capable of speeds of over 300 kph.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvqhLawLXNE

The idea that drowns are just small light electric models is only a tiny part of the possibilities.

Yes I have been a model flyer for many years, it is a lot of fun and is adequately regulated, unfortunately drones are a whole new ball game. Below is a link to the current regulations for drones.

http://rpastraining.com.au/casr-101-uav-drone-legal-or-illegal/

In fact I fear that the whole scene may become regulated out of existence unless steps are taken to curb the cowboys.

Warmair,

That is actually my point, I flew RC planes in my youth more than 3 decades ago and even then the majority were heavy and fast enough to cause serious injury, and this has largely not created panic in the public.

What Joe Bloggs is worried about is that someone will capture him picking his nose and post it on Youtube.

The reality is that with GoPros mobile phones this risk has existed for a while. New legislation for a non existent problem is not what we need.

See ad appearing on OLO
http://www.kogan.com/au/buy/parrot-ar-drone-20-power-edition/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=&gclid=CKuHmaqT1b8CFdh8vQodUyMArQ

IM,

"The AR Drone with Wi-Fi connection has a range of up to 50m so you can travel further and higher than you ever thought possible!"

50m and 720pixel camera these are hardly a threat.