Had my first semi "confrontation"

[JSKCKNIT]

Bottom line, you're responsible for knowing the laws where you're flying. If you have questions or concerns about legalities, seek consultation with a reputable attorney prior to.

You have no obligation to deal with an irate member of the public. More than likely, you'll never change their view. There was a posting on here not too long ago where a member of this forum handled the situation like a champ.

Paranoid neighbor calls police on drone pilot and gets told to “just leave them alone!”

 

[Steve L Reid]

If I'm just flying my drone over your house in route and see you wife nude in the backyard sunbathing I haven't violated any law. But if I hover trying to see her in her bathroom that an invasion of privacy whether I'm using a drone or a ladder. The word drone doesn't make it illegal but the public thinks they're evil.

 

[ac0j]

The case from 1989 might be handled different with some of the new Regs you posted.
Plus, we are talking 400 feet. I dont think the public would even notice the drone at 400' so it shouldn't be an issue until we are talking less than 100' with a drone. No one will complain about what they dont know is happening.

Depends on where you are....
laws have been posted in this thread, Look at post #s 69, 71, 95, 120, and 121

 

[ac0j]

Depends on where you are....
laws have been posted in this thread, Look at post #s 69, 71, 95, 120, and 121

Note, "curtilage" means Yard or land.

 

[Chip]

...The word drone doesn't make it illegal...

I think acOj is right, depends where you are. Idaho does in fact treat taking photos by drone completely differently than taking photos with any other camera.

No person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to photograph or otherwise record an individual, without such individual’s written consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph or recording.

 

[jaysrmc]

Depends on where you are....
laws have been posted in this thread, Look at post #s 69, 71, 95, 120, and 121

U know, we should start a live stream with all of us discussing topics and posts that are interesting. If you have the time, we could do it like once a week in the evening. It might be cool or turn into **** and fart jokes.

 

[ac0j]

Maybe we need a call in pod cast?

 

[Chip]

The case from 1989 might be handled different with some of the new Regs you posted...Plus, we are talking 400 feet. I dont think the public would even notice the drone at 400' so it shouldn't be an issue until we are talking less than 100' with a drone. No one will complain about what they dont know is happening.

I agree with you. I was trying to show the absurdity of FLA maintaining that a Tello flight presumptively violates a property owner's reasonable expectation of privacy while a full blown sheriff's helicopter hovering at 400 feet (with no probable cause), does not. Ironically, the one rationale I can see is that the helicopter is open and obvious so you know for sure you are under surveillance while with the drone you do not.

 

[ac0j]

There will certainly be lots of new laws and rules. A point to note, Even if you are not recording, or even if you dont have a camera drone people assume you are violating them and cause problems anyway.
The generic use of the word Drone is disturbing. Any "DRONE" laws could include the use of cheap no camera quads as well.

 

[jaysrmc]

Maybe we need a call in pod cast?

Im going to start looking into the best way to do it. I think it would be cool if everyone could see each other and then just bs about topics on the forums.

 

[ac0j]

Im going to start looking into the best way to do it. I think it would be cool if everyone could see each other and then just bs about topics on the forums.

Oh my, that could turn into a virtual bloodbath......... I cant hold my tongue near as much as I can my typing (and THATS not great at times), I dont think I could participate without very loose language and morality constraints LOL!

 

[jaysrmc]

Oh my, that could turn into a virtual bloodbath......... I cant hold my tongue near as much as I can my typing (and THATS not great at times), I dont think I could participate without very loose language and morality constraints LOL!

Lol, you and I both but I plan on this being something where anyone can say whatever they want.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Google maps street view even blurs peoples faces when people get caught by the camera. imagine the amount of manpower it takes for google to view every minute of the street view recordings to locate and blur faces!
Must be a reason they go to the trouble and expense. But maybe its all software driven?

Google uses an automated system for that.

 

[ac0j]

Google uses an automated system for that.

I think I figured that out while typing!
Why do you think they bother?
If what some are saying is true, and they will swear it is, it is not a problem to walk or drive around filming people in public. Maybe Googles Lawyers aren't as smart as Mavic Forum users?
I for one am going to assume that Google has done the research, and just continue not to film people without their knowledge. With a drone, camera or phone.

 

[Malcx]

I think I figured that out while typing!
Why do you think they bother?
If what some are saying is true, and they will swear it is, it is not a problem to walk or drive around filming people in public. Maybe Googles Lawyers aren't as smart as Mavic Forum users?
I for one am going to assume that Google has done the research, and just continue not to film people without their knowledge. With a drone, camera or phone.

Primarily it's for PR - I'm pretty sure the very early alpha/beta of streetview didn't have this and many people were uneasy about it. It generated quite a backlash among early adopters. People _felt_ their privacy was being violated even though they had no reasonable expectation of it.

Rather than have lots of negative press Google added the auto blur feature to keep the public happy which was a small technical cost that doesn't impact the usefulness of streetviews image's primary purposes.

Shortly after facial blurring they added license plates for similar reasons.

 

[ac0j]

Primarily it's for PR - I'm pretty sure the very early alpha/beta of streetview didn't have this and many people were uneasy about it. It generated quite a backlash among early adopters. People _felt_ their privacy was being violated even though they had no reasonable expectation of it.

Rather than have lots of negative press Google added the auto blur feature to keep the public happy which was a small technical cost that doesn't impact the usefulness of streetviews image's primary purposes.

Shortly after facial blurring they added license plates for similar reasons.

I had that figured out. Thats why I said I would do as google does. They have far deeper pockets than me. If they dont want to deal with it, neither do I.

 

[AnzacJack]

I was expecting this...

 

[mikemoose55]

This is all bull, the privacy thing that is , when you are out in public. If you think that is not the case consider this........
The only difference between a drone with a camera and a smart phone is ALTITUDE
The only difference between a drone with a camera and a smart phone is EVERYBODY has a smart phone
The only difference between a drone with a camera and a smart phone is everybody has their smart phones out , in hand and operating.
I simply wonder if that same man stopped and asked the same question of everyone else he met along the way with a smart phone. The obvious answer is NO, smart phones do not freak people out,
drones are from the boogie man and do things like take pictires and videos of unwilling people.

Lastly think back a few years at least here in the USA when there was the big boom in video cameras, you know those 15 pound shoulder mounted cameras that turned us all into one eyed ballerinas.
Never heard hey are you filiming me those were simply cool (for ten minutes)
mikemoose55

 

[Elton Hammonds]

Your bolding is omitting a key part of that statute.

"With the intent to conduct surveillance".

Inadvertently capturing someone on their property is not a violation of that statute.

I've discussed this with my lawyer and he absolutely agreed with you.

 

[Elton Hammonds]

I'm an honorably discharged Marine Corps veteran. I'm not some perverted pedophile using a drone for nefarious purposes, nor am I a part of the "yes I can crowd". So no, the definition of surveillance is not "broader than what I think". The statute clearly states intent. If you're using your drone to photograph someone in a bikini, obviously your intent is not a roof inspection!! Nice try though.

Don't take my word for it, run it by an attorney and they will tell you the same thing. I ran the above statute by an attorney before I posted. Did you do the same?

SEMPER FIDELIS BROTHER.

You're absolutely correct. My attorney was under my command before joining the Florida Bar Association and he has confirmed you are 100% correct.

Sea lawyers kill me.