Nope. The way "anybody" could question it is because you're simply wrong about what rights you have. My advice, learn about rights from books, not cable television.

You have no right to privacy, except where you maintained your privacy successfully. Or rather, you have a right to try to be private. Outdoors is not private. Never was. Never will be.

Yes, new laws will be written to regulate use of drones over private land, and they will require permission. But no, privacy won't be any part of it.

Your jammer idea is the pinnacle of idiocy. Yeah, just point electronic devices at the sky that you believe will cause small aircraft you don't like to fall from the sky! Nothing wrong there, that is safe enough to give to idiot rednecks that already discharge firearms in a city.

If you're surprised he was released the next business day, you probably don't read small-town newspapers. This sort of gun crime happens all the time in redneck towns. You also see lots of citations for "illegal burning" and "animal cruelty."

You don't actually even know the angle of fire, such is the depth of your ignorance.

If you knew the angle of fire, such comments might be worth considering. But since you don't, you can't even claim to think your comment is relevant.

"shotgun" doesn't mean, "shotgun shell loaded with birdshot." Man, people are sure ignorant.

Dictionaries, people. Dictionaries. I thought nerds had all read the whole thing multiple times?

Actually, no. Liberals support the clear view doctrine, because it is established legal precedent.

The people crying about the children are just idiots. Don't try to dump them on us. Liberals support the right of photographers to do whatever weird shit is legal, even when it is disgusting.

I tried to wave off the Russian satellite that is also photographing his daughters, but it is still up there, flying over again and again and again.

Maybe his daughters aren't invisible outdoors, even on privately-owned land.

With the added benefit, you know it might be back because after being arrested for shooting it, you had to buy him a new one.

If there is some "unauthorized recording device," that is a tort claim. Hire a lawyer, and file a lawsuit. Taking the law into your own hands will not end well for you.

Under 50' on private land isn't even regulated. There were numerous laws violated by various involved parties, but I really doubt that was one. Check the wording of the law to discover the other reasons.

If you try to understand legal issues, or issues where the community standards are embodied in law, then yes, you really do need to have found out the differences with some sort of help, either from lawyers or from books.

There are differences, but none of them involve privacy. ;) (no, you have no expectation of privacy outdoors)

And not all passers-by; if they're 9ft tall, or riding on their friend's shoulders, they can look at whatever is in view. They may or may not be allowed to loiter on the sidewalk to do it, of course, depending on local law. It might even be illegal "peeping" if they're already violating the loitering law, too.

They can absolutely look over your fence as they parachute down to their landing zone outside your property, or fly over looking for weed growing in your yard.

That is exactly clear view.

The legal example is a neighbor climbing a tree to see over your fence, and over the curtain that protected the ground-level view. That is legal. You have to successfully protect your privacy by blocking whatever "clear view" they might find. Having tried doesn't count.

Now, in many States if that beer crate is on the sidewalk, not your own property, or if you're trespassing on their property because it extends past the fence, then it becomes illegal "peeping." But it is never peeping just to climb a tree or beer crate to see in your neighbors window.

There is long and solid legal precedent. It doesn't matter if the curtains are drawn; they have to successfully block the view. Having tried isn't good enough. The curtains can be drawn but leave a tiny opening, and there is no expectation of privacy. Not only butt-dialing, but even neighbors climbing trees to see over the top of a curtain that only covered the part of the window visible from ground level. It is only "peeping" if they're standing in a place they're not supposed to stand.

The phrasing of the local law, if the drone is over private land and looking into a window to see naked people, that would actually violate the peeping law, and would be a sex crime. That is probably the only law that would be violated. But looking at naked people outdoors never would be peeping, because it is visible from other aircraft.

The implication is that your neighbor can only legally drone-peep your window with a telephoto while hovering over their own land. So if you're flying two houses down, you can only peep at the pool party.

What would she think if she knew that the Russians and Chinese have pictures of her sunbathing? And that numerous geologists and other scientists have their pool in aerial photos? And that the police fly over and look at their yard to see if they're growing weed? People are sure idiots. Outdoors isn't private.

In many, or even most, US States it would be legal to hose (or yarn) it down if you said it was endangering your property. If you said it was "violating your privacy," that is generally criminal destruction of property. You can't legally destroy anything that accidentally crosses a property line. You can sue them, or accuse them of trespassing, or whatever law might apply locally, but you probably can't destroy it legally without an education and a controlled communication strategy.

That doesn't sound like a very good technical solution. How would you know it was the only one, if you didn't investigate it, or have a qualified authority do so? I assume the person smashing the first camera with a maul is still being recorded on all the other cameras. The person who makes sure not to touch it, and reports it instead, would have a chance of actually discovering how many there were, who placed them, and if that person is still free.