Maybe it was this guy?

I am surprised someone has not come up with a jammer that jams the signal going to drones.

Oops, has been done. :-)

If guns don't kill people then that leaves the mentality of gun own and makers to do it, plain and simple.

What I call a no drone zone.

That bird would probably take it out, tho if it you get them to work together think of the cool shots? (No pun.)

Add: Not to mention tie a camera to its leg, they were probably the first drones?

Maybe we should put a ban on eyes?

Area 51 already has that covered.

You see no one complaining about guns there.

Back when people were just "flying model airplanes" sure, they sometimes attached cameras to them, as they also did with model rockets. But it is a very recent development to decide that our roadways should be filled with cameras, that those cameras should perform facial recognition, that it is "necessary for national defense" to build up a database of license-plate scans, and that anything data you can possibly "sense" you can collect, and then publish. (Or, if you're worried about it, "store on your iPhone," which surely will be declared a Constitutionally-protect place, immune from search-and-seizure no matter what evil you did.)

As for me, I think: "no, these cockamamie bright-ideas won't last." That people in our near future won't accept that "every technological thing that it is possible to do is: not just a thing that is 'okay,' but even 'a thing that cannot be legally resisted.'" Yes, the public can decide "where 'the end of their own nose' lies," and can enact laws to enforce that, and make them stick.

And, linked to from that same Yahoo page is the story of another man who shot down a drone which was flying directly over his back yard. He has two little girls ...

And, at the conclusion of the story, this very articulate man made a very true statement: "We need to have laws here. Our rights (of privacy) are being violated every day, not only on a local but on a national level."

Absolutely true. Just because it is technologically possible to do something, does not mean that "you can do it, and no one can say or do anything about it." A voyeur or a pedophile could be using a drone. A thief or gang of thieves could use them to "scope out" a neighborhood. And, so on. There are, of course, two sides to any such proposition, but thus far we have not enacted law, or even consistent ordinances, to protect the party who is being ... searched.

Furthermore, I suggest that people today have no idea how thoroughly and completely their rights of privacy are being trampled by ... the Internet. We've created all of this technology and the public has not yet seen what data is being collected, nor do they realize that these data could be beamed ... straight into the hands of people that the US Military has been continuously bombing in a never-declared war that has now gone on for 15 years. We are being grossly negligent with regards to our own future. We are innocently ignorant of what War will consist of in the 21st Century. We refuse to see "this amazing stuff" becoming a weapon in that War.

As members of the industry that created this stuff and brought it to the public, I think that we are being hideously irresponsible by not facilitating serious public scrutiny of the impact (plus and minus ...) of what we have collectively done. Does it really take "an unprecedented disaster" to cause us to think? The general public (and, for the most part, lawmakers) don't really understand what we do, anyway. But, we do.

There's a right place to fly a kite (with or without a cam &c) but your a moron if you fire lead designed to kill up in the air around anyone (or just in general; not to exclude us all with this or that, here or there! )

What's his next trick? Shooting at a helicopter passing over his house? And naturally we get the usual USian tactics: "My womenfolk are in danger!" "My rights are being violated!" I suspect that most readers of this whole thread who are not resident in the US will feel profoundly relieved by that fact.

No, no, I do think that it is "a question of balance." Sometimes daughters, "in the privacy of their own back yard," decide to ... "get a nice, even suntan."

And, they ought to be able to do just that, without a drone flying over and beaming photos of their young chests to YouTube. Backyards are supposed to be private; fences are supposed to be tall.

The mere technical capability to do something, does not automatically make it okay to do it. But, the necessary laws do not exist yet. I don't know why (not).

Own land? http://googlesightseeing.com/2006/11...-google-earth/

Wusses need guns...