You could look at it that way. But, you could also see it as a a somewhat clever effort to balance privacy rights of property owners with drone pilot's regulated license to fly. My hunch is would be very difficult to prove intentional...
935.50(3)(b) says:
A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee...
It may matter because when you are flying a drone over someone's house you are not using your naked eye to observe anything.
It actually is. I was responding to a post which suggested that the Ciraolo case from the 1980s (US Supreme Court)...
Maybe or maybe not. In Ciraolo, the court noted that from the airplane flying at 1,000 feet, the police could see the pot plants with their "naked eye." A drone does not fly at 1,000 feet and the pilot is viewing nothing with the naked eye. The...