• orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    They claim that they use photos from satellites and fixed-wing aircraft, but refuse to show the photos to both the owner and the news outlet. I can almost 100% guarantee the company is lying about how they obtained the photos and won’t show them because it would prove they did use a drone. Admitting to using a drone would open up a can of legal issues for them that they want to avoid.

    • hypelightfly@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      I doubt they’re flying drones or taking any pictures themselves. They are purchasing imaging from companies that do this like what the ESA offers through Skysat. My county was doing the same thing for planning department enforcement and got a lot of flak for it.

    • zumi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it is way more likely they just bought imagery from existing sources. There are tons of high res imagery out there that you can purchase. Price is usually determined by how old it is. This seems way more likely than an insurance company hiring a drone operator and going door to door. Secondly, companies never share the details of things like this. Wherever the source, they are unlikely to share it. Companies don’t give details because they don’t want to fight you. They just want to cancel your account and move on.

      That isn’t to say this is right.

      Do we want insurance companies peering into our backyards from imagery? I don’t. Regardless of if it’s a drone or not.

      • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s more likely it was purchased/licensed imagery. I just think it’s weird and unfair that they won’t share the images that they used against the client. It’s similar to red light tickets. If people get one, they expect photo proof to come with it.

    • 0110010001100010@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      What legal issues would they be opening themselves up to? All airspace in the US is regulated by the FAA. As long as they weren’t in restricted airspace, following all the regulations, and the operator had the proper part 107 license there is nothing illegal about using a drone in this manner. There have been various discussions over the years about “owning” airspace over ones property but nothing has even gone to court that I’m aware of. Not to mention the company could have well seen onto the persons property while being over public space (I.E. the road).

      I’m not arguing if this was right or wrong, but I see nothing illegal here.

      • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Complete speculation on my part, but privacy laws? My understanding is that in the US, broadly speaking, you have a right to privacy where it would be reasonably expected, which I’ve usually heard defined as places you can’t easily see from the sidewalk. If my understanding is true, then this would be an invasion of privacy just like some creep standing on a ladder peeping on people in their high fenced backyards, and there are generally laws against such behavior.

      • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know the exact details, but I think there are laws about proximity to the yard and home, plus the safety risks involved. It obviously varies from state to state, but I had a friend that sold his because of how weird the laws get.

        Fun fact: I used to work with a client that was a filmmaker. They did tons of drone footage for movies, commercials, tons of big client things. They had a RED camera attached to a super high-end drone that required 2 operators: a camera operator, and a drone pilot (they also had their pilot‘s license). The guy regularly worked with the FAA to help shape the FAA laws for drone footage due to how murky they can be. I always thought that was super interesting.

        • 0110010001100010@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh the laws are super-weird. I have my license and a drone which is why I felt the need to comment. I used to work for a utility company and we had a two-operator drone that required that. Though it was nothing high-end for filming. We used it for inspections, to back-fill crappy satellite imagery, and occasional community events. I’ve kept my license current intending to do something with it, just haven’t really put a lot of work into that other than creating the LLC. One of these days I’ll finally get around to it…I keep thinking real estate.

          • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That sounds super cool. I’ve got some friends that have had a studio for years and they do all kinds of stuff. Promo videos for universities, commercials, events. I bet if you put it out there, there’s a market for it. I’ve seen the higher end real estate companies do flyover videos too. That kind of thing you could probably have a few queued up a day.

            • 0110010001100010@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It was honestly super-fun. Loved getting out in the field with my partner in crime to fly. Hmm may have to do a little more digging. I literally have all the pieces of the puzzle: LLC, drone, insurance, experience, etc. Just have to find the right way to break into the market. I thought I had a lead on doing tower inspections around the state but that ended up falling through. :( Cheers!

              • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oof, what a bummer! A city contract like that sounds like it could be steady. You could go super niche. Make fun videos for a YouTube channel lol.

                • 0110010001100010@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah it would have been guaranteed, high-paying work forever as long as I kept up the quality. All towers need to be inspected regularly. I thought about that but I’m not even slightly creative and wouldn’t even know where to begin.

          • Overzeetop@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Honestly, Real Estate is a race to the bottom. Not that I’m complaining, I found a place that will do a Matterport scan of a small building for $250 and send me CAD files of the floors (I’m a structural engineer, so getting a full 3D photo and scan plan without having to tape a place myself if a huge help).

            I got my part 107 so I could justify spending $400 on an OG DJI mini to play with. Turns out it’s actually super useful for getting roof data on existing hvac units (I can read model and serial numbers off face plates). The down side is that it works so well I haven’t been able to justify spending more for a better drone.

    • prole@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So if they’re not drones, what is the implication there? That insurance companies are flying fucking spy planes over the US? Ridiculous that this is viewed as ok.

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or insurance needs to be nationalized and not run for profit. Insurance started as a way for rich people to hedge against a total loss when investing in long distance trading ventures. Insurers then found a way to worm into every aspect of life including things like housing which is not a venture undertaken by choice.

        • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, any insurance company with “mutual” in the name is basically operated for the benefit of the insured parties. The owners are the policyholders, and any profit the insurance company makes gets paid out to the policyholders as dividends essentially partially offsetting the cost of their ongoing premiums.

          Turns out, though, plenty of insurance companies run this way can still enrich their executives at the expense of policyholders and owners, so you still need to keep an eye out for self-interested individuals (or incompetence that costs everyone money), even if the company itself isn’t profit-driven.