I only have daughters, and I have my own protip, they don't like being spied on while sunbathing in bikinis in their own fenced backyard by men with flying cameras.
Second protip, a father will go to jail to protect his daughters.

My neighbour is a film producer, he has an industrial sized hexcopter for professional filming, and I've never seen him use it in our neighbourhood other than for test flights within his own yard. So I know it is possible to own a drone and not be a jerk about it.

Are you talking about the owner or the other people? It seems to work both ways.

So you don't see any violations apart from the violations? Sweet.
And there's no might about it. Flying near people definitely breaches the don't fly near people rule.

I never went to school in the US. Can you tell me the outcome if a Peeping Tom mounts a video camera to a pole and hangs it over my yard directly at my teenage daughter?
For bonus points, what if I throw a bunch of ball bearings really hard and fast at the camera causing it to smash and drop on the ground?

FAA already has this covered. Public airspace starts at 500 feet, or 1000 feet over any building or antenna.

I hope the case gets dismissed. I'm no fan of US gun laws, read my posting history, but this guy was on his own property defending his family from creepy behaviour.
This is actually one of the most valid reasons to own projectile weapon I can think of, which is why I support restrictions to drone use. I don't want to see increased gun ownership just to defend against this type of nuisance.

Because diversity breeds strength.
Nature has a nasty way of playing catch-up. Look at the rise Asthma, Hay fever and allergies in conjunction with our increasingly sterilised environment. I'm fine with GM food, but we should be a little cautious that any reduction in diversity will have consequences sooner or later (most likely later when it's too late)

I won't argue, it was weak, but the point that I'm struggling to demonstrate is that dissent is part of a healthy democracy, and we should be able to distinguish the difference. Snowden isn't out to overthrow and replace the current system, he is merely shining a light on those who are exploiting it.
Maybe a better way to put it it that the aspirations of the founding fathers are more closely aligned with Snowden's actions, then the current government's (both sides)?

The funny about the US is that is was founded on terrorism. It was owned by the King of England, and the terrorists rose up and defeated him.
How is Snowden any different? The US govt is now playing the role of the King of England, and he is playing the great American Hero. Where are his supporters who will happily fight and die along side him? Nah too hard, what are the Kardashians up to this week?

Actually it is the America you grew up in, you just didn't know it.
If one thing has changed over the decades it is visibility of detail of how the government operates. Decades ago they were still doing the same shit, possibly worse, but they had a lot more shadows to hide in.

Like shoddily built old houses and cars, people wrote the best laws they could at the time. When flaws are identified, then isn't the answer to amend and improve them? You're response seems to be just leave it and blame the original law writers for not getting it perfect the first time around.

Yeah but the law can't be that vague, which is why it is always changing to catch up with evolving language and technology

You think, what about what I think? Or others think? I'm fine that you have your opinion, but you should also respect that other people have opinions, and your personal experience doe not reflect everyone else's experience on earth.
Drones may not present an issue to you or me right now, but somewhere on the planet I can imagine that they are, and I can also imagine that the popularity of drones is growing extremely fast, so even if not a problem right now, it soon will be (just like Laser pointers when they first hit the market)

Assault and battery won't stand up in court without evidence of injury.
The problem with lasers is a lot of damage is done indirectly, ie distraction causing accidents, which is not covered by assault and battery laws. Hence new laws specifically targeted at the new threat, previously impossible with the technology of the day.

Well that's the great thing about the Internet, you get to hear how it is in places that aren't where you're from.

That's fine if you live in a bubble, but when your fuck-up negatively affects my life then the only path is chaos.
Freedom is relative across all of society. And the most free a society can get is when there are rules in place that ensure other's behaviour impact your life as little as possible. Freedom has never meant 'everyone do whatever they like'.