Well, damn, I was seriously considering getting one of those gag "drone hunting licenses" from Deer Trail Colorado.
But they decided not to issue them.
http://time.com/46327/drone-hunting-deer-trail/The town’s clerk Kim Oldfield described the proposal as “more of a tongue-in-cheek measure” about residents’ “right to privacy,” a playful way to express displeasure about surveillance in society. That sentiment was clear in the full 2,800-word, now dead ordinance, which starts with a clause about “advanced technological developments” that have affected “the rights of Americans to be safe and secure in their persons and properties from covert gathering of information and use of such data.
Rats. The humor value of having one of those would have been worth the $100 they were going to ask as a license fee.
But on reading the OP's link I kept saying yeah, sure, at the noble pontifications of the LAPD:
...the [LAPD] department said it wouldn't engage in widespread surveillance with the aerial vehicles and would only employ them for "narrow and prescribed uses" including; hostage situations, barricades, and suspect searches. On June 5, in response to criticism over the department's potential drone usage, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said he would seek input from privacy advocates and civil rights groups before deploying the unmanned aerial vehicles.
"We're going to thoroughly vet the public's opinion on the use of the aerial surveillance platforms,"
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/raging-hockey-fans-destroy-lapd-drone-2014-6#ixzz34gAq8SrA
Yeah, yeah, sure... vet it with the public and then just go ahead and use them no matter what "the public" says. Mere soothing blandishments.
