![]() |
Drones are clearly going to be more popular and have a huge number of uses as the technology continues to improve. Some of the uses are benevolent others potentially malevolent.
One of the problems is that technology is moving rapidly and the law is much slower at catching up. |
Originally Posted by Filerunner
(Post 18114858)
If drones are aircraft then they better stay out of my air space. Aircraft has to be flown in a safe manner; no stunt flying in populated areas.
|
Originally Posted by Biker395
(Post 18114842)
I consider it to the drone owner to be guilty of peeping tom by proxy.
Welcome to 2015. |
Seems like a cool hobby, but like most of these, it will only take a minority of people to abuse it and then laws will be passed to regulate the use of drones in the near future. Despite private property laws, government officials being followed, petafiles and schools, etc. will probably usher in public property laws.
The question I have has to do with the take-off and landing of the drones and FAA regulations. I don't know anything about the use of private property to take-off and land aircraft, but I bet there is some FAA regulation or local ordinances that regulate if you neighbor decides to use a Sikorsky to get to work from his backyard. John |
Originally Posted by fat biker
(Post 18113441)
Since nobody asked, I will.
How long before we are discussing "What's the best racket construction material for swatting drones, wood, aluminum or carbon fiber" And "Which racket mount do you like" Not hard to imagine that a cyclist could crash if buzzed. Jeff, still fat |
Originally Posted by Biker395
(Post 18114706)
...Count me among those that would swat/shoot it down if one were stalking me or invading my privacy on my own property.
If a drone flies close enough to me that I can swat it down, then it clearly has invaded my 3-foot personal space which virtually any psychologist is well aware thereof. In such a case, the drone is clearly antagonizing and potentially endangering the individual and I’d make the drone pay the price. I’d never make restitution to its owner as it’s THEY who are clearly in the wrong. I could care less about any imbecilic law concerning this matter if it permits those who are piloting drones to violate my personal space (typically a 3-foot radius) hence, harass and potentially endanger me, especially while I’m riding my bike at some of the speeds that I do. The laws are oft times written by those who clearly lack an ounce of commonsense, but are instead being influenced by those with money. The underlying nature of current governments is corruption with justice and morality too often taking a back seat. |
Originally Posted by Cyclosaurus
(Post 18114867)
Federal law says it isn't trespassing. You don't own the airspace above your property. That's why you can't sue Channel 5 news for flying their helicopter over your property either. Perhaps you think that you can sue someone and just make up whatever you want the law to be and think a jury will believe that but that's not how it works.
Since it's happened multiple times that someone has knocked down a drone, and the person who attacked the drone is the one arrested and subject to civil liability, and the drone operator is not arrested or charged with any of your made-up laws, I think you'll find the police only too happy to correct you on which side of the jail cell bars you are on. Please cite the federal law that says it is not trespassing to fly a drone in someone's back yard, focusing a camera in their windows. The laws I am referring to are common law torts and are a matter of state jurisdiction. They are not made up. |
|
Here is some interesting reading which contain facts.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_p...A_Guidance.pdf |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by tcs
(Post 18114894)
I was carrying the trash out right as the Google Streetview car drove by. Now there's a picture of everything in my garage on the world wide web.
Welcome to 2015. What we are discussing here is the limits of what one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" to. The law is complex and fact-driven, but generally, anything you allow to be seen by ordinary means from a public vantage point is not something in which you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Google does push the envelope at times. Consider this Google maps shot of the home I grew up in (looking a whole lot crappier than when we lived there). How OK is it to get a picture from a vantage point equivalent to standing on a 15 foot ladder? http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=473625 |
Here is the one big hobbyist rule that should apply.
|
Originally Posted by 70sSanO
(Post 18114898)
Seems like a cool hobby, but like most of these, it will only take a minority of people to abuse it and then laws will be passed to regulate the use of drones in the near future. Despite private property laws, government officials being followed, petafiles and schools, etc. will probably usher in public property laws.
The question I have has to do with the take-off and landing of the drones and FAA regulations. I don't know anything about the use of private property to take-off and land aircraft, but I bet there is some FAA regulation or local ordinances that regulate if you neighbor decides to use a Sikorsky to get to work from his backyard. John |
Originally Posted by tcs
(Post 18114894)
I was carrying the trash out right as the Google Streetview car drove by. Now there's a picture of everything in my garage on the world wide web.
Welcome to 2015. |
Originally Posted by Biker395
(Post 18114987)
Please cite the federal law that says it is not trespassing to fly a drone in someone's back yard, focusing a camera in their windows.
|
Originally Posted by Biker395
(Post 18114987)
Nonsense. You're talking to a lawyer here.
Please cite the federal law that says it is not trespassing to fly a drone in someone's back yard, focusing a camera in their windows. The laws I am referring to are common law torts and are a matter of state jurisdiction. They are not made up. |
Originally Posted by hig4s
(Post 18115127)
Here is the one big hobbyist rule that should apply.
Hmm, I wonder how the courts would rule if a cyclist purposely damaged a vehicle passing within three feet? (Ha! Actually, I don't wonder about that.) |
Originally Posted by Cyclosaurus
(Post 18115233)
*If* the camera could actually see in your windows (which during the daytime is unlikely). And *if* someone put a telephoto lens on the drone instead of the wide-FOV cameras normally used. And *if* the camera could record something that would be impossible if the drone was hovering over an area outside your property...*then* I would say you would have a case. Or if someone is doing it for commercial purposes rather than personal/recreational ones. Consider that an artist put on a public exhibition of relatively close-up photos taken of people through their exterior windows, without their permission using a long telephoto lens. When he was sued by the subjects of his photos for invasion of privacy, the plaintiffs lost and the photographer won. Privacy ain't what it used to be. The FAA says it''s legal to fly a drone over your house for non-commercial purposes. Let us know when you file your lawsuit.
Seriously, dude ... do you really think you have (or even should have) the right to fly into someone's back yard with a camera looking in their windows? |
That's it. I'm getting me a counter drone armed with a full complement of water pistols. This will sit on the bike rack ready to be deployed in an instant to counter attack dangerous incursions of my borders.
|
I got buzzed by a drone on one of the local greenways one time. I don't think it was intentional but merely someone not fully in control of the situation.
Modern Family has had some hilarious episodes involving drones, FWIW. |
Originally Posted by Biker395
(Post 18115280)
I'm still waiting for where any law promulgated by the FAA says as much. And you're citing cases without telling us what they are ... as I said, the law is fact dependent, and privacy laws vary from state to state.
Seriously, dude ... do you really think you have (or even should have) the right to fly into someone's back yard with a camera looking in their windows? As far as looking in windows, apparently I do have the right, at least in New York state as upheld by the NY Supreme Court, to put a telephoto lens on a camera and photograph you and your family through your windows and put them on display in an art exhibit, suggesting that public beliefs about privacy rights and what courts will enforce may be very different. Anybody who wants to seriously invade your privacy with a gopro drone is really using the wrong tool anyway. |
Originally Posted by berner
(Post 18115364)
That's it. I'm getting me a counter drone armed with a full complement of water pistols. This will sit on the bike rack ready to be deployed in an instant to counter attack dangerous incursions of my borders.
|
I like this even better. A trained eagle patrolling my borders.
|
You don't own the airspace above your property but if I am on my porch attached to my house is that air space or part of my house? Funny If you just feel there is a threat you can kill someone but you can't knock down a drone that is harassing you. Knock it down and if the video is saved on a SD card make sure you remove and destroy it before you return the remains.:)
|
If I am buzzed by a drone, a person in a vehicle, or anything else that causes me to fear, then it is assault, and will be treated as such, if I cannot easily flee from the assault, then it is self-defense to confront and control the assailant, whether it is a person with a gun, or a drone stalking me.
If a drone is close enough to collide with me in a matter of a few seconds, it is close enough that the operator is acting in a threatening manner. At least that is what I will claim when some whiny kid (of whatever age, 8 to 108) complains about having to come pick up the pieces of his toy. Whether it would stand up in court or not, I don't know. |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 18114699)
A fellow on a beach was bothered by a drone hovering very close to him. He threw his t-shirt at it which took it down. Officers soon appeared and arrested him. He spent the night in jail, then posted a $10,000 bond. The DA declined to press charges. However he will still be liable for a civil suit for property damage, estimated at $750. Plus of course his lawyer's fees, if any.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:46 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.