On Sep 29, 10:44*pm, DA
wrote:
responding tohttp://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/almost-half-of-all-americans...

DA wrote:
Major Drone *wrote:
Close to half of Americans say they are in favour of police departments
deploying surveillance drones domestically.

I hope police departments that do deploy them are very well insured! I would imagine that these things will drop far more frequently than actual piloted aircraft and typical homeowner's insurance does not cover the damage caused by falling aircraft. I had always assumed that to operate an aircraft you would have to carry a pretty hefty liability insurance and that, as well as the fact that damage causing events are extremely rare, has been figured into the price and the coverage of typical homeowners insurances over the years.

Now, with drones flying overhead supposedly 24/7 and no pilot onboard to correct a situation and perhaps prevent or limit the damage to life and *property (perhaps even by sacrificing his own, as did happen before), the chance of aircraft damage may become significant enough for insurance companies to start charging extra for it. If that happens, it would be very interesting to watch the civil discourse that will unfold. Presumably, the deployment of drones can cost both the police departments as well as the consumers huge amounts of money, and a nice benefit to insurance companies.

I don't believe anything can stop eventual domestic deployments of drones (not necessarily for law enforcement) but it will take years to figure out all the laws and insurances and cost benefits, especially in densely populated metropolitan areas. Not as straightforward as to buy another cruiser and hire another officer. I don't even think it's going to be cheaper in any meaningful way. So, we'll see...



You Americans are thick as sh*t.
They are remote controlled, that's all.
The pilot is sat in the office miles away.
Probably looking out for women sunning themselves in the back garden.
So no savings, just more snooping.