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.

No, my statements about the FAA are about the fact that flying a drone over private property is legal and unless you can prove that there is other activity that is illegal...firing bullets for example as you mentioned...then I don't see how you are justified in assuming otherwise for the purposes of destroying the drone or suing the operator. I really don't see how you can say that the default legal position is that a drone IS invading privacy without actual proof. After all the CA law you cite says that the invasion of privacy includes trespassing with intent to capture images. If you can't prove the drone has a camera, the camera was on, and was aimed in a direction that would capture images that you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then where's your case? And in any case destroying someone else's private property is illegal (hence people being arrested for it and having to pay restitution) and knocking down an aircraft is illegal under federal law. So youdefinitely break the law because someone else ​may have broken the law.

Hmm, and here I thought that you actually had to commit a crime to be convicted. I guess as long as someone imagines you committed a crime even if they lack proof that's enough. I guess presumption of innocence is "unworkable" in your professional lawyer's opinion.

You'd have my vote in your favor, Biker395.

Seriously?

Laws are written to be workable ... they define criminal behavior in clear terms. It has nothing to do with presumed innocence.

How about an example? It's already illegal for you to walk into someone's back yard without permission, regardless of whether you have a camera or not. It's trespassing. Going there with a camera and snooping around in windows is a separate, additional crime.

Given that, why should you think you're entitled to fly a drone into it and hover around instead? All you are doing is using your drone as a proxy for yourself.

I'm frankly astounded that you would regard flying a drone around in someone else's back yard to be OK.

But there is no criminal behavior in just the mere presence of a drone, even over your property. I'm going to say this again. The FAA regulates aircraft and airspace. A drone is an aircraft. The simple act of flying a drone in the airspace above your property is not a violation of any law. Local communities cannot legislate flying an aircraft as an illegal act because the FAA regulates the airspace. Got it?

So if you define additional actions, be it photographing, dropping things, firing weapons, etc. as illegal, then fine. But guess what? If you want to charge someone with those things, you actually have to prove they did it! Just flying a drone (try not to lose focus here...we've established just flying a drone is legal) does not support a criminal charge, and is not evidence of any of the additional activity that is illegal.

Presumption of innocence is the heart of it because you want to make it illegal for someone to fly a drone on your property and the only way you can possibly do that is to impose presumption of guilt for something that you admit you have no way of proving.

And trespassing law doesn't apply to aircraft in regulated airspace, which includes above your property. There is no crime with an aircraft flying or even hovering your house, yet if someone walked onto your property, it would be a crime. Do.you.now.see.the.distinction? You're an actual frickin' lawyer and you can't even see that your analogy is utterly flawed and useless?! This is why people operating jetliners, FedEx cargo flights, Cessnas, crop dusters, news choppers, etc. cannot be charged with trespassing for flying over your property. Nor can they be charged with invading your privacy unless you can present, you know, actual evidence that they did so. Just whining "but they're in my airspace, they must be spying on me!" actually doesn't constitute proof of anything except perhaps that the person is a big stranger-danger crybaby.

Given that the FAA says that it is legal to operate a drone for recreational purposes in airspace up to 400' even over private property, yes I think everyone has that right. You keep using words like "entitled" to make it seem like I'm taking some stand about rights. All I am doing is pointing out that the law gives everyone that right and people who think they can destroy a drone are violating federal law regarding aircraft and local laws about destruction of property, endangerment, etc., and incurring civil liability for the property that they destroy. I have not taken any moral stand on the rightness or wrongness of this, other than to say that we should be subject to the actual laws the way they are written, not how we imagine them to be.

Keep trying. Why as a lawyer would you be astounded that someone simply points out what is clearly legal? The letter of the law says so, the law has been practiced so (given a number of drone-attackers being arrested and paying restitution while drone operators are not arrested, charged, or convicted, or subject to civil suits regarding privacy invasion). Only your assurances that it *must* be illegal anyway and this actually, somehow, some way, gives you the right to destroy aircraft in the air in violation of federal law, say different.

Wow, is this some sort of jedi lawyer mind trick you're trying, where you prove the exact point I am making, then act like it shows you were right all along? If so, you may need to spend some more time channeling the Force because it's not working.

My point was that despite what you or the general public thinks invasion of privacy is, the law may say something very different. I'm pretty positive if I had asked you before the Arne Svenson case whether it was legal to take photos of people through their windows with a telephoto lens and then publicly display them, you would have said a definitive "no". Especially given that you think a much lesser activity, that being a gopro-equipped drone merely being in the airspace above your property, is also an invasion of privacy. Yet the court ruled very clearly that it was legal. Meaning what you and probably most people (including me) thought was an illegal invasion of privacy actually was not.

So...when you point out that the court said, hey our hands are tied here, and it required changes to the law to make such activity illegal, then you are making the same point as me. That what you are so sure is illegal actually may not be! That legislators are scrambling to patch a hole in the law does not mean the hole doesn't exist.

there was an idiot flying a private plane in tight circles above my house below the allowed ceiling, maybe 100 feet. I was really annoyed. I should have called the FAA on the pilot, there would have been a "come to Jesus" meeting.

I fly model planes, and quadcopters. I would never fly near someone. Ok, so I've hit my labmate with my tiny quadcopter a couple of times, but it barely stings. We have some quadcopters with 9 inch blades that would probably put you in the hospital. Model airplane flying is not allowed on campus here, with the popularity of quadcopters I expect those rules to be challenged. If someone was buzzing me with one, I would probably call the cops. Looking around for the idiot with the radio is another option.

the Navy's is a bit bigger Navy: New laser weapon works, ready for action - CNN.com

I give up.

Previous to drones, court rulings have stated "the air above the minimum safe altitude of flight... is a public highway and part of the public domain." So far courts have not determined this.

Sure...so can STA missiles, all of these, F16 fighter jets, and the Bermuda triangle.

The continued use of UAVs to invade privacy will create (has created) the need to review current law. A change is required due to unforeseen misuse of what is essentially a toy. Big boys toy but yes, a toy. Being the high point of the election cycle it will be touched on eventually. Whether any meaningful change will result remains unanswered.

Very often, technology out paces current law. It happened with computers in the early 90's when there were no laws pertaining to theft by/from a computer, hacking or any other crime which in which a computer was the instrumentality of the crime. Sooner or later State and Federal Law will catch up with the new toys.

Sooner rather than later in California. Yesterday, the Assembly passed legislation making controllers of drones civilly liable for flying below 350 feet over private property without written permission. It does not require the presence of cameras on such drones:

Today's Law As Amended

This is in addition to the bill referenced earlier that imposes civil liability with regard to using drones to take photographs and the like.

Wait, you've been arguing this entire time that it's already illegal to fly drones over private property and you have the right to smash them...why would these bills be at all necessary if that was the case?

Edit: This is no surprise in California. The reason this was adopted so quickly to protect movie stars from paparazzi, not any concern for regular folks. It will be interesting to see if it catches on anywhere else. It will also be welcomed by businesses such as agriculture which want very much to avoid any public scrutiny, and used to prosecute journalists and whistleblowers acting in the public interest.