I concur.

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.

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.

Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft

Recreational Users | Know Before You Fly

Here is some interesting reading which contain facts.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_p...A_Guidance.pdf

Yea, no kidding!

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.

• Do not intentionally fly over unprotected persons or moving vehicles, and remain at least 25 feet away from individuals and vulnerable property.

If you can reach it to hit it, it is in violation of safety rules.

That's a manned aircraft. Also above the weight that they typically classify as a model aircraft. The FAA has different rules for model aircraft, commercial UAS, and manned aircraft

By the logic that a lot of people are using in this thread, you would have been justified in hurling a cinderblock through the windshield of the Google car.

It seems as though to defend your opinions about overflights and airspace, you've had to retreat to 'looking in windows', which is altogether a different thing. Clarify your thoughts for us if you wish.

*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.

Gee, in my town ground vehicles only have to stay 3 feet away from cyclists, and it was a twenty year long push just to get that ordinance.

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.)

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?

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.

As you say, depends upon privacy laws. One thing is certain though and that it's legal to fly the drone there. I find it hard to believe that local trespassing laws would apply any more than they would to commercial jetliners passing overhead. The FAA says that they regulate airspace, period. So, being a legal activity, the presence of a drone alone does not mean that anyone is peeping in the windows, or that any illegal activity is automatically happening. You can't even prove a camera is on or recording when you see a drone. And as I've said, the optical characteristics of the camera and the scene makes is unlikely in most cases that any real invasion of privacy is even possible.

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.

No need. Just get an eagle to do the job. Apparently they already come trained in anti-drone tactics.

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.

They have a word for people that fly drones at the beach: perverts.

just thought of something I used to be a pilot and if I recall you could not fly under 500 feet agl in a populated area except for take off and landing in other words no buzzing houses. Some of that regulation was self enforced as many flyers came to grief pulling that one off.

Well, this is the law here in California. And this is statutory law:

"Physical & Constructive Invasions of Privacy - California Civil Code section 1708.8. This law defines physical invasion of privacy in terms of trespassing in order to capture an image, sound recording or other impression in certain circumstances. It also defines constructive invasion of privacy as attempting to capture such an impression under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Your statements about the FAA are based on the logical fallacy that just because the FAA regulates that airspace and does not expressly prohibit a particular activity, you are entitled to perform that activity without breaking other laws. Flying over a house shooting bullets into it may or may not violate federal law promulgated by the FAA, but it sure as hell violates state law against attempted murder or wanton endangerment. That the FAA regulates airspace does not preempt states from enacting laws regarding activities performed in that airspace.

As I said, if I see one in my backyard, it's toast. And if they sue me for damages, I'll countersue. I'm pretty sure what a jury of my peers will decide.

BTW ... The reason that case was dismissed in NY was because it required that those photos be used for commercial purposes. The Court wasn't thrilled about dismissing the case, and invited the Legislature to step in:

Within a month of that court decision in NY, the Legislature did just that:

Bills

for manned aircraft, unmanned hobbyist aircraft are not allowed to fly over 400ft.

Even better.

Welcome to the World, Drone-Killing Laser Cannon | WIRED

That would depend on altitude and loitering of the aircraft, no?

The touchstone is whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

There are bright lines, IMHO. I suspect I have no such reasonable expectation for a drone flying by at 500-1000 feet, but I would for a drone hovering in my back yard at 10 feet. IMHO, that would be an invasion of privacy regardless of whether there is a camera aboard or not.

With regard to my "retreat," the point is that the person being violated has no idea whether there is a camera on board or not. A law allowing drones to hover around in your back yard unless you can prove they had a camera would be unworkable, as you'd have no way of proving it one way or another.

So if I'm going to be arrested,even jailed perhaps I should just march over and beat the crap out of the operator. Biggest bang for the buck as it were.

Couldn't this also be used to bring down a passenger aircraft by those interested in doing such things?

I'd assume this is really for military use.

Prove it.