Originally Posted by
Cyclosaurus
My mistake...the bill was obviously changed since the publication of the article (and when I first read it) to incorporate the language which eliminates the flaw that Gregory McNeal pointed out.
That said, he does a better job than me in this article and others of his he links to of outlining how, absent a law like California's new one, drones are legally permitted to fly over private property.
I think our disconnect is that we are envisioning different circumstances.
I think the situation you're envisioning is someone flying a drone at low altitudes across a largely or sparsely uninhabited area that is private property, or at higher altitudes that are more densely populated. That doesn't trouble me so much, nor do I think it would constitute a tort (for nuisance, trespass or invasion of privacy) under common law .... it would depend on the circumstances.
The situation I envision is someone flying a drone at 10 feet or so into my back yard and loitering it there. That troubles me a lot, and likely would constitute a tort under common law.
Does that make sense?
BTW, the California legislation isn't law yet ... the Senate has to pass it (likely, as they have a similar bill pending), and the Governor must sign it ... (there is no telling what he'll do).