Sam on Drones

Some interesting replies/thoughts, that I didn't think of until now. It's one thing for an aircraft to fly over your house. But is a low flying drone with video any different than peaking over your neighbors fence? Then again, the same neighbor complaining may be the same person with TMI on his/her facebook page! :shock: Colby
 
colbysmith":3bmp6mzx said:
...It's one thing for an aircraft to fly over your house. But is a low flying drone with video any different than peaking over your neighbors fence? ...
Click to expand...

It is still up in the air about where your property rights end and where the NAS begins. FAA seems to think that if a sUAV is not physically connected to the ground (or inside a structure) it is under their jurisdiction. Actually this applies to all things that are designed for sustained flight (i.e. pretty much all model aircraft).

So if a drone is over someone else's property, there is some question as to who's rights are infringed on. On the other hand if the drone is over the operators property (or public spaces where operation is allowed) then the subject has pretty limited recourse. It is not really any different then me sitting in my bedroom watching the neighbors backyard through the window (which has an excellent view of their yard).

If I rented a fullsized helicopter and flew it so as to view the neighbors yard, even directly overhead, they would have no rights that I know of to stop me.

The neighbor might have recourse depending on what I do with the images/footage recorded, but not with the actual capturing of the video.

The government really needs to sort out where the property owner's rights end and the FAA jurisdiction starts. Most people believe that what they do on and over (to a reasonable height) their property is their own business and not the FAA's.

There was a period where I could not legally fly any model aircraft in my back yard AT ALL because the FAA restricted all model aircraft flight within 30 miles of DC (about 28 miles away). This has since been reduced to 15 miles.
 
Florida is quite clear on what expectation of privacy:
Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act
934.5 3 b:
(b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.
Click to expand...

The context of this statute is basically ref to law enforcement search without warrant. There are a number of legitimate exceptions. This has been used for basis of civil litigation.

I suspect that many other political entities have similar statutes . Some cities in Florida have passed specific drone laws as to when and where the drones may fly ref to City property or public gatherings...
 
As I understand, Europe which has security cameras all over the place also has fairly strict privacy laws. What this means, as I understand it, while you can have security cameras which may record your neighbors you must be sure that they are not released or published without your neighbors permission. This law extends to other photography, phones, email etc.

Government employees with access to such information are equally liable to severe sanctions if they violate someone's privacy.

For some reason in the US congress and the courts are reluctant to enact similar measures.
 
Back
Top