Kentucky's Shotgun 'Drone Slayer' Gets Sued Again (yahoo.com) 307
"Technology has surpassed the law..." argues a Kentucky man who fired a shotgun at a drone last year. An anonymous Slashdot reader reports:
The drone's owner has now filed for damages in Federal Court over the loss of his $1,800 drone, arguing that the shotgun blast was unjustified because his drone wasn't actually trespassing or invading anyone's privacy. The defendant -- who has dubbed himself 'the Drone Slayer' -- said the aerial vehicle was over his garden and his daughter, and the verdict could ultimately set a new precedent in U.S. law: who owns the air?
"Operators need to know where they can fly," argued the drone pilot's lawyer, "and owners must know when they can reasonably expect privacy and be free of prying eyes." He estimates a drone is shot from he skies about once a month, and "What happens typically is that law enforcement doesn't know what to do and civil suits are uncommon as most people don't want to get involved due to the costs."
The Drone Slayer was originally charged with felony counts of wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. But all of those charges were dismissed in October when a district judge ruled he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft."
"Operators need to know where they can fly," argued the drone pilot's lawyer, "and owners must know when they can reasonably expect privacy and be free of prying eyes." He estimates a drone is shot from he skies about once a month, and "What happens typically is that law enforcement doesn't know what to do and civil suits are uncommon as most people don't want to get involved due to the costs."
The Drone Slayer was originally charged with felony counts of wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. But all of those charges were dismissed in October when a district judge ruled he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft."
Rule of thumb (Score:5, Interesting)
How about if the drone is vertically close enough to your private property that you CAN succesfully shoot it, then its too close and doing so is allowed. (Excluding sniper rifles)
Re: Rule of thumb (Score:2)
I'd go with something like: If the drone flew over private property without permission before, there's a presumption that it will fly over your property whenever it heads in the direction of your property. The property in the first case doesn't have to be your own -- it could belong to a neighbor who told you they hate drones and would never allow overflight.
Re: (Score:2)
That rule of thumb seems excessively restrictive to drones. What if the drone pilot has permission to fly over your neighbor's property?
Re: Rule of thumb (Score:2)
Then my rule of thumb doesn't apply to the drone flying over that neighbor's property.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the neighbour obviously knows about the fact that he gave permission and most likely would restrain himself from shooting down the drone ...
Re: (Score:2)
There are places for people to fly drones. A neighbor's property isn't one of them.
Why? What if the neighbor not only permits it, but encourages it? What if the neighbor has asked you to photograph her gutters or her chimney before she calls a roofing guy to come out and climb up for a look? What business is it of yours if your neighbor is just fine with it? Perhaps your neighbor doesn't think you should be allowed to go use your lawn mower to cut some OTHER person's lawn. Should they be able to stop you? No? I see.
Re: (Score:3)
There are places for people to fly drones. A neighbor's property isn't one of them.
Why? What if the neighbor not only permits it, but encourages it?
It seems the scenario being talked about is a drone operator flying his/her drone over several properties in a neighborhood. A scenic tour, you might say. Your example of a homeowner having said operator perform a specific function over her own house, and limiting it to that specific place and time, doesn't follow the example.
Re: (Score:2)
A neighbor's property isn't one of them.
My neighbor's kid has a quadcopter drone, and it crashes in my backyard occasionally. I don't mind at all. It is just kids having fun.
Re: (Score:2)
It is just kids having fun.
I wonder how you'd feel if someone parked a drone over your back yard with a camera watching your comings and goings, what time you went to bed and woke up, what kind of property you leave out, who visits your house and when, how many kids you have and what ages they are, and so forth. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Someone WILL eventually do that, most likely a LOT of someones, because there are some fucked up people in this world. A law that says it's perfectly alright for someone to fly a drone i
Re: (Score:2)
A pizza drone is a pro tool for making money, you expect it to be more regulated than a "fun" drone.
No, you should not expect that. Drones should be regulated based on size, location, method of control (line-of-sight or not), and payload (camera, machinegun, etc.). Whether the pilot is a "hobbyist" or a guy trying to support his family is irrelevant. "Profit" doesn't make it any more or less dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Rule of thumb (Score:4, Insightful)
if you own a piece of property, do you own the airspace above it?
The FAA allows aircraft to fly over your property without your permission as long as they maintain a minimum altitude. Over congested areas, I think the minimum is 1000 ft (300m) above ground level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Rule of thumb (Score:2)
Re: Rule of thumb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drone operators need to be very careful. Shotguns work on people, too.
Drone shooters need to be very careful. Shotguns (and other nasty surprises) can be attached to drones, too.
I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment/private firearm ownership and castle doctrine believer, but can't we take a damned breath and give laws and regulations a chance to catch up before shooting at shit that poses no serious direct threat of personal harm?
Look, I get there may be some cases where discharging a firearm against a drone might be justified, but holy crap! People act like they're ready to set emplac
Re:Rule of thumb (Score:4, Informative)
Please educate yourself.
"Regulated" as in well trained. Not as in governed by laws. A "well trained militia".
The 4th definition of "Regulated".
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
"Militia" = All able bodied males 18 to 45 years of age.
This is what makes the Selective Service and Draft are legal. Every male 18 to 45 IS the militia.
SO this is how the law sees it.
"Males aged 18 to 45 well trained in using guns, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Re: (Score:2)
This article is about a proposed drone operation law in California. The law is poorly written, but the author of the article has, what I think, is a good compromise. He suggests that drones should be able to operate at between 350 and 500 feet over private property. Anything below 350 feet, without authorization, is fair game for the shotgun crowd. The graphic depicting this is at the bottom of the article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gr... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Slime-balls (Score:3, Insightful)
"and owners must know when they can reasonably expect privacy and be free of prying eyes."
Lawyer acts like he's doing a fucking public service. What a crusader for truth and justice. How about - AT ALL TIMES when I'm home, fucker. Hah, it's not like he cares, he's getting paid either way.
Re: (Score:2)
AT ALL TIMES
I think it is going to become an airspace issue. A small drone hovering over my house? I can see a reasonable right to destroy something that low. A jet flying over my property at FAA allowed height to land at the airport? I don't think I will get permission to shoot at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this described the tacit limit of your property rights as "within shotgun range."
Repeating my statement from From Tuesday October 27, 2015 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This has already been well established. The air above your house is NOT yours, beyond the height you can use. In one case, a judge settled on 83 feet. Somebody flying his little quadcopter by at 200 feet isn't in "your" airspace at all, hovering or not.
If I can fly my drone up to 400 feet above my house, then I am making use of that airspace, which makes that MY airspace according to your, and the court's reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slime-balls (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Slime-balls (Score:4, Insightful)
Go mount a camera with telephoto lens on a tall tripod on the sidewalk in front of someone's house. Have it pointed at any of their 'curtain protected' windows.
Don't let anyone tell you that you are invading that homeowner's privacy, and refuse to leave your position.
Let us know how long before the police arrest you.
Re: (Score:2)
How about getting naked in a bathroom with the curtains shut, but with a slight gap that the telescope can see through? Especially if the person has it mounted on a news van sitting at the curb right in front of the house, 24 hours a day.
The logic of your argument fails quicker than that of the AC's post you replied to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm with the man shooting the drones. Fuck off outside of the city with that shit or into a park. Anyone can say they aren't spying with their drones, including those who spy; and drones are becoming more and more dangerous as cartels and gangs are starting to use them.
You didn't see me running an RC car and my chopper all over the fucking city when i was a kid, i had the decency to keep that shit in-house, in the garden, or in a park.
Difference between drones and RC planes/choppers (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a fundamental difference between these so called drones and RC planes or choppers. Drone operators aren't interested in "piloting" . The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos and once that's the intention it changes the whole flight.
I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera. Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.
Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper (Score:5, Informative)
I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera. Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.
It's funny how you stereotype people who enjoy something extremely similar to what you do. There's plenty of people who enjoy drone flight for the sole purpose of flying, though the camera remains an integral part of the experience since it allows you to see your drone's movement from the first person. There's even drone agility competitions which are all about maneuvering drones on extremely difficult courses, not filming. Drones just have the ability to also take beautiful shots from high on up, but that's not necessarily their sole purpose.
Re: Difference between drones and RC planes/choppe (Score:3)
I totally agree on the fpv aspect. If you're flying and not hovering in people's back yard ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Test that theory. Print this part of the page out, take it to your next drone meeting, and ask everyone to prove bronney wrong by taping over their camera. Have every person fly simply for the pleasure of seeing a drone fly.
Let us know what percentage of your fellow operators are purists.
PS. I know this reads as pure snark, but I only mean it as one quarter snark, and three quarters real challenge of your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a fundamental difference between these so called drones and RC planes or choppers. Drone operators aren't interested in "piloting" . The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos and once that's the intention it changes the whole flight.
but...
I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera.
...yeah see, there's the problem. You can do the same stuff with an RC aircraft. So what, does that mean we should aggressively control everything that's not attached to a control line? Wait, you can use a kite for aerial photography, we're going to have to think this through a little more...
FPV is showing up on everything now, because FPV is now cheap. So if you want to argue that FPV should be the differentiator you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
Re: Difference between drones and RC planes/choppe (Score:3)
Fpv has been here for a long time. Why do you think this privacy thing just came out now?
It's the wrong intent that makes the real drone users look bad. My friend uses them to video shoot real estate for sale. And went through the right channels to get permission to hover in a residential area.
There are many fun things that we want to do. But it affects other people's feelings and that's why we don't do them. I would love to hover in people's backyard in fpv too but I don't do it because it invades people b
Re: (Score:2)
Fpv has been here for a long time.
It cost thousands to do well until recently. Now it's down to just a few hundred. That's transformative.
Re: (Score:2)
The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos
No it isn't. I rarely use the non-transmitting crappy camera on my drone. I fly it because it's fun to fly.
Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.
No, some.
Of course the ones who've bought drones with good cameras are more likely to have bought them specifically to get video. But it won't be exclusive, and there are plenty of people with drones with no camera at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I own several drones, most of them can't use a camera. The one that has a camera is for FPV, don't know if it's even possible to record with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with the orientation of a DJI without camera then ;)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can only find one counter example out of millions of people, his statement is close enough to truth as to make no difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you own the land outside the city you plan to fly on I wouldn't suggest that either.
There is a reason there are rc clubs with private airstrips and tracks.
That may have been his point. Other that that, there are many areas of the country (the US in this example) with wide open spaces that no one is going to care if someone is flying a toy helicopter over one weekend a month.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference being that guns are designed and intended to kill. Cars, floors, radiation, water, cold, head, even cancer - are not.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference being that guns are designed and intended to kill.
That's why they work so well to protect life and property from those who would take them violently and why police carry them for the same reasons, duh!
It protects the smaller woman (or anybody less able to physically defend themselves) from the larger (and possibly more numerous) rapist(s)/attacker(s)/home-invader(s).
Privately owned firearms are used for defensive protection in the US on average (often without a shot being fired) anywhere from the bottom-end estimates of ~50,000-80,000 to a middle of ~2,500
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Paint the prophet Mohammad on it. Then the muslims will shoot it.
Ruining it for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
While the law may be somewhat incomplete, you are an asshole if you fly a drone close people or their dwelling on their property. Get permission from the property owner first, it seems to be the ease of use of drones and the entitled attitudes some few people have ruined it for everyone and make new laws necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Air above your backyard is already public property (Score:2)
TL;DR version: The "dystopian future has really arrived" because the US Supreme court disagrees with you. [justia.com]
your own house and garden suddenly become public places where your asshole neighbor can film you and your children
It's not happening suddenly. It happened twenty years ago.
Annoying people is sometimes illegal, sometimes not, but the law doesn't (and shouldn't) consider using "shitty tech gadgets" any worse than lawnmowers, drums, or a ladder. At the same time, the US has strong legal protection for people who want to take pictures, videos or otherwise gather information. You can't make it generally illegal do thos
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where you ae. Here it's not. You can't even sit in your car across the street from your own house to spy on whether your spouse is cheating on you - and for that all you have to see is who enters or leaves the house, not what goes on inside.
We also put restraints on private investigators so that they are no longer allowed to spy on people either.
Re: Ruining it for everyone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you still beating your wife in the privacy of your own home?
Re:Ruining it for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
I fly in my back yard all of time time. I'm well within shotgun range of 4 neighbors. Does that mean I'm automatically an asshole and automatically trying to get a peek at my neighbors daughters? Or is the possibility that I'm learning how to fly, in MY backyard, during reasonable hours? Why should I need to go get permission from my neighbor to fly a quad in my back yard?
What's wrong with the criminal process as it is today? If the neighbor thinks I am taking pictures of his daughter (whether from a quad, or from my deck using a camera with a nice zoom on it) he can call the police, and they can do their job. If I'm disturbing their peace (by flying my quad, using a chainsaw, or playing loud music) there are legal avenues for that too.
None of these situations need to involve shotguns or willful destruction of property. People taking the law into their hands is never a good thing.
Re:Ruining it for everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're flying it over your own property, you probably are standing there in your backyard. Your neighbor probably saw you in your backyard. Your neighbor probably knows you have a toy helicopter you fly over your own backyard.
If after all that, you only fly if over your own backyard, but only when the neighbor's teenage daughter is sunbathing in their backyard, yes it deserves to be taken out.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure how you can argue it was not invading privacy when it was downed with a shotgun. The maximum effective range is around 75 yards and you can pretty much shoot at people 300 yards away and pose no danger (do not do this obviously).
75 yards is damned near the minimum height at which you can legally fly an airplane, upon which you can mount a big fancy camera. The drone does not pose a privacy risk that isn't already posed by aircraft, when operated legally. Does it potentially "violate" your notional privacy? You betcha. Does that give you the right to shoot it with your shotgun? Nope. You shoot it with a camera, show that its camera was or at least could have been facing your daughter, and go to the DA. If they're doing their job, af
75 yard can be well outside most properties (Score:2)
Re: Ruining it for everyone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's assume we have a certain wooded block that's two miles to a side in the country, and several landowners that own non-rectangular sections. None of it is marked "No Trespassing", in accordance with your assertion. It is well known that all of the landowners except one allow hunting on their parcel, no written permission required.
Now let's someone is walking on property owned by a landowner that allows hunting, and he crosses 10 feet over the unmarked boundary onto the property of the landowner that doe
Re: Ruining it for everyone (Score:3)
If your car is driving along that dirt road while unmanned, maybe someone shooting it would be analogous to shooting down a drone. If a person is in the car, it's much easier to stop the car and tell them to stop (compared to a drone, where the operator may not be visible), and shooting at the vehicle puts a person at risk of harm (compared to a drone, where the only risk is recompensable property damage).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think that drone operator was trying to spy on the girl and is now playing the victim.
You don't "think" that, you're making that up because you wish it were true. But it's not. Read the details. The operator also has detailed flight logs to back up his description of events.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to Godwin this but..
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the pilot claimed 200 feet - but that's past the effective 40 yard range of most shotguns. And how accurate is that telemetry?
Then he should have checked with the other neighbors to see if it was ok, or at least so they would know he was taking pictures of his friends house and not looking for houses to break into. Seems the pi
Re: (Score:2)
(I am partial to .25mm to the legs)
That's about a 26-gauge hypodermic needle...
Re: (Score:2)
Then take your drone to a park.
Non sequitur.
And cops shoot or beat innocent people to death in the streets. That mean it's ok if you take a bat to some stranger out wa
Re: (Score:2)
And cops shoot or beat innocent people to death in the streets. That mean it's ok if you take a bat to some stranger out walking his dog?
As a dog owner, I'd say if they didn't pick up their dog's sh*t, I have no real problem with you taking a bat to them. Just don't hit the dog - it's not their fault.
Re: (Score:2)
And cops shoot or beat innocent people to death in the streets. That mean it's ok if you take a bat to some stranger out walking his dog?
Only if he doesn't pick up the pile of poop.
It's already known (Score:4, Insightful)
Drone advocates can act as clueless as they wish but it is already established what we own. Up to 500ft. If building a structure less than 500 ft (Actually this was amended to 499) you need no clearance from the FAA. There is so much precedent on this that no ignorance can be taken seriously. Weather towers over less than 500ft are provided some guidance by the FAA but the FAA states this is only a helpful guideline to assist in safety for cropdusters. This feigned cluelessness by drone advocates is the same as all the cluelessness we have seen when some established rules are suddenly questioned just because the internet is involved. It's 500 ft. Ownership is a somewhat improper term. Property rights is a better term. You have the right to build unimpeded to 500 ft. Beyond this you need special clearance. This rude and boorish posturing by drone advocates would have us believe that you could build a foundation on your property then cantilever one foot off the ground such that the rest of the building was almost entirely over your neighbor's property. Pure and obvious rubbish from the drone operators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At no point, anywhere, does the FAA indicate the altitude below which you "own" the airspace around private property.
Of course not, the FAA has absolutely no authority over ownership of airspace above private property. You might as well assert that setbacks don't exist because the FAA does not indicate so...
Sued again? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
One judge already ruled the act was justified. (Score:5, Informative)
The drone's owner has now filed for damages in Federal Court over the loss of his $1,800 drone, arguing that the shotgun blast was unjustified because his drone wasn't actually trespassing or invading anyone's privacy.
The Drone Slayer was originally charged with felony counts of wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. But all of those charges were dismissed in October when a district judge ruled he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft."
It's true the Federal government has sole jurisdiction over US airspace, but that only applies to airspace above 499 feet. Furthermore, Causby v United States states that a landowner's domain extends at least up to 385 feet in rural areas.
Or You Could Just Not Be That Neighbour (Score:2)
Re:Or You Could Just Not Be That Neighbour (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that just shooting the drone was a dick move. But it was the drone operator who made the first dick move. You shouldn't shoot first, ask questions later. But neither should you fly first, ask questions later.
Cletus, get yer gun... (Score:3)
Them city folks just said its ok fer ussin to be shootin up all them low flyin aeroplanes. Turns out them city-slickers been peepin out them windows into yonder bathroom window while grampa's a-poopin.
Re: Does it matter? (Score:2, Funny)
Is he speeding in your yard? Parked illegally in your daughters favourite suntanning spot? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter if the drone operator was in the wrong? That does not give the hillbilly permission to shoot it. How about the next time his pickup truck exceeds the speed limit or parks illegally, we set it on fire. Is that OK?
Living in 21st century 'Murrica, other questions come to mind, If a person sees a human powered airplane or helicopter over their property, and believes the pilots are spying on his teenage daughter, does that mean that the guy in Kentucky has the right to shoot down the flying device?
Re: (Score:2)
does that mean that the guy (you meant "yahoo", right?) in Kentucky has the right to shoot down the flying device?
As you mentioned Kentucky explicitly, I would say: YESssss!
Re: Does it matter? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Online Forum Pro-Tip: When you write "'Murrica," you betray your classist prejudice, weaken your argument, and reveal yourself as a hipster lightweight.
Or I can be sarcastic. Sarcasm has nothing to do with hipsterism, more to dealing with people who find that using deadly force is fun.
One most interesting thing is that you manage to make some claims, about my Hipsterism and the AV club, you manage to do a whole psyche workup on me. Odd. You'd be real surprised to find out what I actually am. But I'll leave that to your febrile imagination.
Kind RobotRunAmok, when we try to determine what another person is with precious little information, and based upon
Re: (Score:2)
And yet RobotRunAmok is correct.
No he isn't. He took one simple sarcasm, and tried to do a psyche writup on me, which was completely incorrect. Then he added declarations on me being a Hipster, and a member of the High school AV club.
I was being sarcastic, he was making incorrect declarations, possibly based on projection. Regardless, he completely ignored the salient part of my post, which makes for some interesting discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Parked illegally on your propoerty? Tow it away and no problems. And no, you're not required to tell him where it was towed to. Set it on fire? Generally, setting ANYTHING on fire without a permit is illegal, so I wouldn't try that. Though if you left your pickup in front of my aunt's house, she'd set it on fire in a heartbeat. And dump the leftovers into the pond....
Re: (Score:2)
Federal authority over flight rules is likely the federal question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drone cost $1,800 and then court + legal fees = $73,200
Re:Look a bit higher (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the law disagrees with you. It doesn't, however, work like people here think it does. There isn't a line in the sky saying "this far, no farther". It depends on the nature and intent of the intrusion.
For example I've flown in a helicopter belonging to the Florida Keys Mosquito Control district. Those spray jockeys' job is to lay down pesticide on hard to reach places, particularly the first place a mosquito might light after crossing between islands which is likely to be a line of mangroves or bushes. They're accustomed to flying *low*. En route between Stock Island and Marathon Key we flew so low over peoples' houses I could certainly have told what magazines they left out by the pool -- if we hadn't been going over 100 mph. It's just normal business for those guys, and they're not targeting those homeowners in any way. But if we'd hovered over his house to ogle his teenage daughter, that would be an intrusion, apart from the epic noise.
This isn't really different from privacy law in general: context and intent matter. If someone is standing behind you at the ATM, that's not necessarily breach of privacy; but if they are doing it to look over your shoulder that's different. If your neighbor looks at the back of your house, it's normal. If he sits in his tree trying to peer through your back windows, it's not.
One of the landmark cases in privacy was Nader v.General Motors Corp. where GM retaliated against Nader for writing unkind things about its cars by hiring private investigators to dig up dirt and intimidate Nader. One of the things they did to intimidate him was to follow him around all day, often openly following him a few feet behind as he went about his business so he'd know he was being constantly watched. The court ruled this was an invasion of privacy. Sure the PIs had a right to be in the places they went, but they didn't have a right to be there doing what they were doing.
Re: (Score:2)
if we'd hovered over his house to ogle his teenage daughter
I never read anything that indicated the drone was 'ogling' the daughter.
I have two UAVs and use them for real estate aerial photography and to take pictures of people's houses for them (It's something that people do up here in Nova Scotia). I have to sometimes fly over other people property to get the correct viewpoint or angle and I only need permission to take off or land on somebody's property. If they have an issue with anything I'm doing they have the right to contact the RCMP. This has happened t
Re: (Score:2)
I think that people should be required to register their UAVs in the States
This is already the law, if the machine is over .55 pounds. So even small toys must be registered.
Re: (Score:2)
This is already the law, if the machine is over .55 pounds. So even small toys must be registered.
No, you are not even close. You have the number right, but none of the other facts. The drone operator must be registered, and he puts his UAS number on all of his remotely controlled flying machines over .55lb. Over 55lb, models require FAA registration just like an airplane, with a tail number and everything.
The FAA has just recently set up the guidelines for becoming a commercial drone pilot; prior to this if you wanted to engage in commercial activities with a drone, you were legally obligated to get a
Re: (Score:2)
You miss my point: the law doesn't paint a bright line; it weighs factors like intent, circumstances and method.
Flying over other peoples' property in order to get to your target is a different set of circumstances than poking around on that person's property.
Re: (Score:2)
They're accustomed to flying *low*. En route between Stock Island and Marathon Key we flew so low over peoples' houses I could certainly have told what magazines they left out by the pool -- if we hadn't been going over 100 mph.
Don't get your point.
In most civilized countries exactly this is forbidden. And I would bet in a big deal of the USA as well.
So just he can get away with it makes it not "common law" or even allowed by the law.
Minimum flight height is several hundred yards (depending on local legisla
Re: Look a bit higher (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, for pete's sake you can't shoot people for trespassing on your property either, but that doesn't mean your property is fair game for anyone who wants to tramp around on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, for pete's sake you can't shoot people for trespassing on your property either, but that doesn't mean your property is fair game for anyone who wants to tramp around on it.
That's a pretty great analogy, though. I wouldn't argue that invading someone's privacy or even just noise polluting their airspace isn't being a dickhead. I'd only argue that shooting down a drone with a shotgun when you could start a fire is being a stupid dickhead. It's also unnecessary. Odds are someone is just GPS drifting. If you think otherwise, gather some evidence like an adult. Nine times out of ten, the drone pilot is your neighbor, not a bunch of houses over. The further you get away from home a
Re: (Score:3)
The answer to the federal question is easy. Get a few of these drones flying over the White House and see if anybody complains. Done.
The FAA has already designated a 30-mile-wide circle around the White House as a No Fly Zone - with serious penalties if you operate there. Bad example. You are not "done."
Re: (Score:2)
If our mere servants are afforded such protection then it seems obvious that we can defend our own property.
On what basis?
Another way to see this is that the 30 mile zone wouldn't exist if there were no problem with flying drones over each other's houses.
Again, on what basis?