How do they they get the video feed back to the controller? Range?

The video is usually recorded on a SD card on the drone itself. But also drones such as the DJI Phantom can transmit a live video feed back to the controller. DJI claims a range of 1.2 miles.

They would have to be able to find the drone first. As a photographer, I am pretty familiar with rights, usage and privacy issues concerning photography and filming. Something close enough to look into windows? My privacy being violated. Out.

OK, so if you were photographing and happened to be on private property, then the property owner can seize your camera smash it because it is possible to violate privacy with it? No way. Just because a drone isn't being held in another person's hands doesn't mean that it's legal to destroy it, even if it is violating your privacy.

You guys are crazy about your privacy. Have you ever been on a boat on a canal at night? You can see into every single house along the canal/river.

Blinds were invented for a reason.

Besides, if someone accidently sees you naked, big deal. Everyone has seen a naked person of the opposite sex at least once in their life. Frankly I think people in the US are far too afraid of nudity. If someone is being a peeping tom, then call the cops on them. Otherwise stop worrying about things that shouldn't deserve your worry. Life is too short.

The EASIER way to deal with someone flying a quadrotor over your property would be to go talk to them and ask them to not fly their quadrotor over your property. But people are afraid to TALK to each other now-a-day since the advent and popularization of anonymity over the internet.

If I couldn't find the person flying the quadrotor and they were "buzzing" me, I'd grab the quadrotor, tie it to something heavy, with a note in range that says "If you want your quadrotor back come to this address." Then ask them nicely not to fly their toy over your property. If they ignore you and do it again, then and only then would I try something more drastic.

The courts said the owner does NOT own the air space above his land or every transcontinental flight would have to be grounded. But the owner does have right above his land that is violated if "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." is determined. Also with this ruling they set no heights or guidelines. They did determined the Air Force's constant and low passes over his land was that type of violation.

So unless the flying of a drone over someone's land is determined by the courts to be "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." they have a right to be there.

If it is an aircraft it must operate above 500' over sparsely populated areas and 1000' over populated areas.
So while you might or might not get in trouble for swatting a drone, the operator is committing a very expensive FAA violation.

By FAA rules, hobby remote control aircraft must operate UNDER 400'

NYC Teacher Arrested for Flying Drone at the U.S. Open - WSJ

My take on all this is:

1) don’t destroy any property;
2) if it is "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land" then I would consider it harassment.
3) tie it to something heavy, with a note in range that says "If you want your quadrotor back come to this address." I like this idea but wonder if someone would consider this theft or some sort of kidnapping.

So let’s reconsider the situation if the drone were instead, someone’s unleashed dog. I don't think you are allowed any action unless the dog actually bit you or done any damage to your bike or other property.

Take a look at this story, where something that seems obvious isn't.

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/20...ine-beach.html

Using a gun on a hobby drone is absurd, and makes you THE public danger. BUT a hose or even a pressure washer makes total sense to me

But don't hobby remote control aircraft have to be in direct sight of the controller? I thought that was a big part of the discussion—that a drone is not a hobby remote control aircraft.

Supposed to be, but just because you can't see the operator, does not mean the operator can't see the drone.

So, exactly how would you report a drone incident to the Feds since they claim jurisdiction? This is kind of like reporting a speeding automobile to the police. The only FAA offices that likely take drone reports are generally regional/district offices, and don't exactly have a patrol car that can run around checking on drone issues. (end of snark). Unless you're flying an aircraft and have a drone encounter, I doubt that the FAA can do much for you.

Just my 2 cents. A drone passing over my property en route to someplace else, at a reasonable height, is not an issue. A drone hovering 8 feet above my swimming pool or just outside my bedroom window would have a lot different view than from the road, and might be a problem.

That raises some interesting questions.
If there's an unwelcome drone or photographer on ones property, is it a criminal action to turn on ones sprinkler system to encourage their departure, knowing it may damage the camera or drone?
Would I no longer have the right to throw a ball, spray water from a hose, fly my drone, or any other legal activity I would normally do in my own yard if someone decided to fly a drone there?

I think it would be reasonable to treat a drone with a camera as a proxy for the operator. So if you're doing something with a drone that you couldn't get away with yourself, it's going to cause problems. In a 'stand your ground' state, I suppose that shooting it down would be permissable, but I wouldn't want to go to court as the test case. That's the problem with drones right now - there's very few laws to govern their use, so everything will have to be litigated to determine who can do what. Luckily, I don't have a problem neighbor and the paparazzi have been leaving me alone lately.

That's fixed wing. Rotocraft are allowed and expected to fly lower.

We've had a lot of discussion on drones and the possible consequences of putting one out of commission but it seems we're forgetting about the operator. In my opinion, anyone who wants to fly into close proximity of or over another person's home, yard or pool to watch them is either immature, juvenile, a pervert, something worse, or a private detective working for any number of possible clients. Something worse could be someone considering committing a crime against you or your home and gathering information to assist them in this effort. A private detective could be working for anyone from a divorce attorney to an insurance agency.

As for buzzing people and possibly hurting someone, my opinion is this is not a normal decent person and they fall into the category of malicious and cowardly vermin.

I couldn't open the link to the US Open drone crash so I found one I coiuld open and I am posting it here...

Tennis Officials Eye Security After Drone Crashes at US Open - ABC News

Seems the FAA is already putting limits on where a drone can be used.

John

Its not that wide Open after all ..

Let's say someone was walking up to your front door and you turned on your sprinklers, soaking them. If they happened to have a laptop, or a camera, cell phone, etc, that was damaged in the process, would the homeowner be liable? I'm guessing that plausible deniability would be the homeowner's best defense, saying that they didn't realize the person was on their property. But if the homeowner knew that the person was there and intentionally turned on the sprinkler, who knows how the police, D.A., judge, or jury might view that behavior? I'm wondering if there is a legal precedent for this situation. Perhaps playing baseball or kickball would be safer legally because 1) there's no guarantee that the drone would be damaged vs. turning the sprinkler on, and 2) the drone operator would be able to see what's going on, either by line of sight, or by the drone camera, and decide whether he wants to maintain close proximity to a game of baseball.

That's a tricky one, maintaining free access to ones front door without a fence and locked gate, it seems reasonable that one would be liable for damage caused by intentionally turning a sprinkler on while utilizing that free access. But what if that person chooses to enter ones back yard, or sit on their deck?

Another interesting question, what if the drone is being operated in way that denys one access or use of their property?
If a drone is blocking the door to ones home, preventing them from entering or exiting, would they be liable for damage if they knocked it out of their way?

You can't legally booby trap your yard against trespassers with anything that would cause bodily harm, so there are definitely limits on what measures you can take. Also note that a drone hovering one inch above ground in your backyard is fundamentally different than someone standing in your backyard. The drone is not trespassing (except possibly California), so you would probably have less protection than you would acting against an actual trespasser. I have a Contech Scarecrow for the garden...it's basically a motion activated sprinkler designed to repel squirrels, raccoons, skunks, dogs, etc. I am guessing a drone would activate it too. But perhaps if you can plausibly say you didn't install it for drones you wouldn't suffer liability, but who knows for sure until the legal case happens?

It might matter if you had other means to enter or exit (back door, for instance) that wasn't being blocked that you could use instead. Also the level of violence employed might matter. If you did what the minimum needed to knock the drone away from the door vs. smashing it with a baseball bat, would that seem like a reasonable use of force and be defensible in the eyes of the police/courts? At some point, it comes down to police and DA discretion on whether to pursue charges, and a judge/jury to adjudicate a civil case and make these decisions. In any case, using as little (if any) violence as possible and clearly acting without malice is the safest bet. Also perhaps making sure to make whatever you do look like an accident if possible. Since drones usually have cameras, it would be pretty easy to get caught "noticing" the drone which would make it much harder to argue later that you had no idea that the drone was there when you turned the sprinkler on.

If you're correct, a drone operator basically has more rights to the normal usable space of ones property than the owner, and could use a drone to threaten, intimidate or falsely imprison someone. I don't believe that was ever the intent of the FAA airspace laws.

I think there's going to be more changes in the laws.