Civil Liberties

My purpose in posting was to kill the asinine conspiracy theory you have put forward as a hypothesis, that being that "drones" are being presented as not scary by being shown more frequently in non-threatening situations.

The reason you are seeing more "drones" is because there are more out there to be seen. People like them; they are more stable and quieter than old fashioned remote control aircraft or helicopters, and far easier to control. They cost much less, a reasonably configured one is less than $175. They have potential for many private uses such as checking that house or boat or that leaning tree or a power line or filming wild life or your pets or your hobbies and probably many more uses I have not thought of.

The ACLU article refers to restrictions that could be put in place, federally, to protect the general public - it has nothing whatsoever about your "hypothesis" that private UAVs will be banned.

The WSJ article merely points out that states are legislating privacy rules regarding UAVs and are not proposing a ban on civilian use. The article makes clear that the proposed federal rules will allow privately owned UAVs.

I repeat your hypothesis is nothing more than a half-assed conspiracy theory based on nothing more than your terror of the new.