Using Drones To Soar Above 'Ag-Gag' Laws

from the we-have-the-technology dept

Back in March, we wrote about Idaho’s new “ag-gag” law that made it illegal to expose animal cruelty on factory farms and slaughterhouses in that state. The post quoted a couple of stories by Will Potter on his “Green is the New Red” Web site. @AbbyMartin tweets that Potter now wants to expose factory farm horrors without breaking those ag-gag laws by using a Kickstarter project to fund aerial photography carried out by drones:

The latest trend is that the agriculture industry is even trying to ban photographs of farms taken from the air. It is unlikely that aerial photography can document animal abuse, but these industries are clearly concerned. So what are factory farms trying to hide? Will a drone allow us to see the scope of pollution caused by these industrial operations? I’m going to find out…

As Potter notes, it’s not clear what evidence of animal abuse a drone will be able to gather, but it’s both an interesting attempt to circumvent ag-gag laws that seem to have no rationale other than covering up abuses, and another example of drones being used in innovative — and peaceful — ways.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Using Drones To Soar Above 'Ag-Gag' Laws”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

Cliche if not outright wrong most of the time but...

… every so often the phrase ‘If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide’ does seem to fit, and alongside the other laws prohibiting people from exposing animal abuse at places like that, purely to protect the businesses, if they’re trying to ban aerial pics as well, then I’d say there’s pretty good odds they do have ‘something to hide’, and know it.

David Cortright says:

Are drones really the best tech to solve this problem?

I think drones?while certainly valuable in some instances?are too often put forth as a panacea for so many problems. There are other methods to solve this problem that are simpler, cheaper, and more effective.

The easiest thing to do is get a massive telescopic lens, a parabolic mic, and a good vantage just outside the property.

Or how about accompanying any government employee that goes out to the facility to inspect, and video recording that? It is not against the law to record a government official acting in their official capacity.

And the third method is the simplest: ignore the law. Do the recording anyway but launder the recorder through various middle men. Post the video to servers outside the state/country. If they are abusing animals, then there is a moral duty that stands above the self-serving special interests fueled laws that happen to be temporarily on the books today.

bob (profile) says:

ag-gag and the 1st amendment

how is a law that makes it “illegal to expose [actions]..” pass first amendment muster?
that seems like a pretty clear first amendment case of freedom of speech. sure, you may get nabbed for trespassing. but if the federal govt can’t ban the NY times from printing NSA super secret information, how can a state ban someone from revealing or printing facts, photos, and testimonials?

Stevan Harnad (profile) says:

Please join June 14 world march against slaughterhouses

* *

There is no suffering that we inflict on animals that we do not inflict on humans.

But the vast difference is that the suffering we inflict on humans is seen as wrong by most decent people worldwide — and it is also against the law.

Not so for animals. They are not protected by the law and most of us are not only unaware of their agony in slaughterhouses but we are actively sustaining it as consumers.

Most of us believe (1) that meat is obtained humanely, and (2) that it is necessary for our survival and health.

Both of these beliefs are profoundly, tragically and demonstrably wrong.

Reducing and eventually abolishing the gratuitous suffering that humans are inflicting on animals is one of the most urgent moral imperatives of our age.

The worldwide March Against Slaughterhouses on June 14 2014 is intended to open the eyes and hearts of decent people worldwide
— to the enormity of the agony of innocent, helpless creatures in slaughterhouses
— to the fact that their suffering is unnecessary, and
— to the great urgency of adopting laws to protect them

Lawrence D?Oliveiro says:

Re: Animal Rights, Animal Responsibilities?

Humans have rights, but they also have responsibilities to go with those rights. And we enforce those responsibilities by punishing members of our society who do not live up to them.

If you want to give animals rights, shouldn?t they have responsibilities as well? But how would you make those animals live up to those responsibilities?

And without such responsibilities, why should they have any rights?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...