An expensive privacy lesson

[Neal W]

I live in a 200 unit townhouse condo community. I fly here all the time, with neighbors asking me about my drone out of interest or curiosity. I often post photos of the community and surrounding area on our community Facebook page and get nothing but positive responses. We have a community swimming pool that I often fly over and shoot, but never when the pool is open.

 

[Chip]

If one is flying over the neighborhood in Class G airspace looking at private property and homes, no law is being broken. The “offended” property/homeowner can complain to local law enforcement, but there would have to be a reasonable and provable case of harassment and/or voyeurism.

That depends on the state law where you live. Many states prohibit "surveillance" by drone. Any public drone flight could potentially cause someone to complain of voyeurism, harassment, stalking, privacy invasion etc.

The same would be true for someone driving down the street looking through binoculars. That, in itself, isn’t illegal! There’s nothing wrong in birdwatching!

True, there’s nothing wrong in birdwatching. If that is actually what you are doing. But I would assume that publishing a photo which has a nude image of a neighbor is asking for big trouble in most places.

If an objecting homeowner decides to interfere with a legally operated drone, he/she is breaking a federal law. If one decides to shoot it down, not only is a federal offense being committed, but probably a raft of local laws over illegally discharging a firearm in the process.

True but how does that help if the mob comes to your home with pitchforks and torches and tells you that you are not welcome in the community? I am not sure I believe that is really what happened here. But if it happened to me and I saw the mob approaching I would not call the FAA and expect them to arrange emergency extraction or do anything else to help.

I don’t live in a housing development, but do take into account how much all of us prize our privacy. If I were approached by an angry, aggressive person over my flying, I'd tell that person that if he/she would like to step back and try a more respectful tone I’d be happy to discuss the issue after I land.

HOAs may have angry, aggressive Board Members who have far more control over you and your property than you may think or realize until you get into a confrontation.

There is no reason any of us, flying within F.A.A. restrictions and regulations, should be put on the defensive or feel a need to react defensively to rude behavior.

There is always reason to fear the angry mob because, well, its an angry mob.

 

[mavic3usa]

LOL. While flying a MAV3E, I had a neighbor who lived a street over drive down my street looking for the pilot of the drone I was flying. It was at night. I was on my balcony. I guess he noticed the glow from my RC screen on my face and started a mildly hostile conversation with me from his car, until i said my drone doesn't have night vision. I can't see anything on the ground. He said I was flying my drone above his house for 3 minutes or more. He calmed down quickly though . He just wanted to find out who was flying the drone and why. I told him I didn't realize I was over his house for 3 minutes. Who knows maybe I was,. I think I flew my drone up to 120ft and started looking around the neighborhood by hovering and rotating the drone to get my bearings and to determine which way to fly next. I guess I took too long for him. The biggest thing that calmed him down was when I said, I hovered because I thought I saw something suspicious going on down his street. He liked that answer the most.

Iv'e been laying low for the time being, not flying at night too much and certainly not hovering in my neighborhood. Sometimes though I can't sleep and fly at night but wait until after 2 am when no one is awake. I fly to 250ft and zoom out of the neighborhood in sport mode. They may see and hear the drone , but they know it's not spying on them because it's moving too fast.

So many reasons for the drone to hover. I've seen RTH trigger and take awhile to kick in especially when the RTH is not far off from where you are flying. You could be stopping to change your camera settings. If you lose connection, the drone will come to a halt and it might re-connect and disconnect again. A minute feels like 5 minutes. A drone in the process of hovering is almost always automatically considered "hostile" which is unfortunate. Like you said, sometimes you have to get your bearings.

 

[mavic3usa]

This is what we might be up against:

 

[MS Coast]

Sometimes though I can't sleep and fly at night but wait until after 2 am when no one is awake. I fly to 250ft and zoom out of the neighborhood in sport mode.

For minimum noise from the drone, Cine mode is best, with no extreme control movements. The abrupt change in sound output with strong control movements can be far more noticeable that the steady sound of the drone.

 

[MS Coast]

I told him I didn't realize I was over his house for 3 minutes. Who knows maybe I was,. I think I flew my drone up to 120ft and started looking around the neighborhood by hovering and rotating the drone to get my bearings and to determine which way to fly next.

I think I'd be strongly curious and perhaps a bit edgy if I noticed someone hovering a drone120 feet over my house at night.

Good on you for handling the situation and his concerns smoothly.

 

[mavic3usa]

Just to be clear, when you do decide to hover, depending on where you are located, be sure to take a quick look directly down to make sure where you are. The camera view is deceiving and you are not likely atop where you plan to be. You don't want to be right over a parking lot or over the playing field that you probably can't even see thru the lens. Then, people will look up and that's not cool even if it's harmless.

 

[davidarmenb]

Just to be clear, when you do decide to hover, depending on where you are located, be sure to take a quick look directly down to make sure where you are. The camera view is deceiving and you are not likely atop where you plan to be. You don't want to be right over a parking lot or over the playing field that you probably can't even see thru the lens. Then, people will look up and that's not cool even if it's harmless.

I often fly around my suburb neighborhood where there is nothing but hills and homes (I try to stay above 350ft and never hover to avoid disrupting anyone) and I believe this statement deserves a repeat.
Even having the camera a few degrees up from directly down can cause you to think you are much closer to your subject than you actually are, so checking the map and looking directly down (-90 degrees) in these cases will help get your bearings tremendously. This applies even more when we take the zoom lenses on the Air 3 and the Mavic 3 series into account, as the compression and much smaller field of view makes is almost impossible to judge your positioning using the camera view alone.
You can even have the gimbal at -85 degrees and think you are directly above something when you are still actually forty feet downstream of it. The higher the drone is, the more this applies.

 

[MARK (LI)]

.

. I fly to 250ft and zoom out of the neighborhood in sport mode. They may see and hear the drone , but they know it's not spying on them because it's moving too fast.

And this is done while maintaining VLOS, of course?

 

[Droning on and on...]

This is what we might be up against:

Yup.

Can't have it both ways. People either have privacy rights, or they don't.

If you can do it, so can authorities.

 

[mavic3usa]

If you can do it, so can authorities.

No that's not true at all.

I never need a warrant to do what I do with my drone. I don't have arrest powers so I never need probable cause to look around someone's back yard and be nosy. If I suspect my neighbors are up to no good, I can snoop around all day every day until I see something bad. The people cannot demand that I stop it or else get a warrant. The police don't always need a warrant but often it is a good idea if they want to build a solid case or if the law says so.

OTOH, the 4th Amendment says the government (and that included the police or the "authorities") must have probable cause in order do certain things. The people are protected against unreasonable searches from their government, not from their neighbors. All we have to do is pass a law that says using a drone to collect intelligence, gather photographs, or conduct surveillance must be supported (in most cases, not all cases) by evidence that a crime has been committed and then going forward, the legal system can set and adjust the parameters to which society is ok with law enforcement use of drones. But for now, flying a drone over the property for extended periods or using a long lens or IR camera on a drone...is "unreasonable."

This can be done at the same time that citizens are not prohibited at all. The problem with both citizens and government being held to the same standard is the potential abuse. Law enforcement has a history of exploiting known (legal) loopholes and exceptions to the 4th amendment such as exigent circumstances. "The drone was deployed to prevent the destruction of evidence", for example. Plus the government can get a search warrant (and I cannot) which means they'll be able to do it and I cannot if a law is passed to prohibit it (which is the opposite). I suspect as drones become more ubiquitous then the issue is less pronounced which is why I am suggesting we get ahead of this.

It's already being done with laws in many other instances, both ways. The police are allowed and I am not...and it makes sense in some cases. The police are not allowed (because the people tell the police what they can and cannot do) but the citizens are GTG because they are....free.

 

[MARK (LI)]

In all of the "what if" scenario mentioned,, no one ever puts themselves in the other guy's shoes...think about it...would you like someone flying over YOUR house?......how would you react?....

No that's not true at all.

I never need a warrant to do what I do with my drone.

Sounds like times have changed and the courts ruled that in cases like this....a warrant is not necessary...although I bet that someone will contest it down the road ....and win

 

[Droning on and on...]

@mavic3usa, you completely missed my point.

The very same arguments used by some here to diminish the privacy and property rights of homeowners w.r.t. camera drones also are used to diminish rights against surveillance by authorities.

You can sit on a park bench filming people in the park all day long.

So can a detective, without a warrant.

 

[Aerophile]

This thread jumped the shark a long time ago.

 

[mavic3usa]

@mavic3usa, you completely missed my point.

The very same arguments used by some here to diminish the privacy and property rights of homeowners w.r.t. camera drones also are used to diminish rights against surveillance by authorities.

You can sit on a park bench filming people in the park all day long.

So can a detective, without a warrant.

You can and so can a detective. Unfortunately a police officer cannot always have that right. It has to be reasonable and non-intrusive and meet a certain legal threshold set by the courts and even by some state and local laws and department policies, many of which do not apply to me and you and the detective.

For example, taken from the APD policies: https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/General_Orders.pdf

318.4 CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTERSOfficers are encouraged to initiate interviews with people of the community in order to gain athorough knowledge and become an integral part of the community.(a) Except as specifically prohibited by general orders, officers may talk to a person atany time, for any reason, in performance of their duties.(b) An interview should be conversational and not confrontational.(c) A consensual encounter is not a stop or arrest and there is no intent to inhibit anyrights or freedoms of a person. The person has the right to:1. Fail to respond to the officer.2. Refuse to identify themselves.3. Walk away from the officer.(d) Negative inferences will not be made based on a person's refusal to cooperate in theinterview.
Still photographs of persons interviewed during a consensual encounter shall not betaken without the person's permission. Verbal consent shall be captured using theBWC recording system. When the BWC system is unavailable, the DMAV system shallbe used. The officer shall document the consent in the appropriate incident report,supplement, or FO card. Officers should refer to General Order 303 (Body WornCamera Systems) for further guidelines.(f) Officers will not inquire into a person's immigration status during a consensualencounter.

What does this mean? I think it means if I am sitting at a public park bench and APD walks up to me and says didn't I see you at the grocery store yesterday? And he goes to take my picture and I decline, he is prohibited by policy and since APD policy often has a legal basis, it's probably unlawful as well if I am not being detained and I don't consent. So the officer walks away and up next the store manager walks by and says didn't I see you at my grocery story yesterday? He doesn't need my consent to take my picture with his cellphone or his drone.

 

[StevenBrodsky]

And this is done while maintaining VLOS, of course?

I fly from a 3rd story balcony. It Helps.

 

[Droning on and on...]

You can and so can a detective. Unfortunately a police officer cannot always have that right. It has to be reasonable and non-intrusive and meet a certain legal threshold set by the courts and even by some state and local laws and department policies, many of which do not apply to me and you and the detective.

For example, taken from the APD policies: https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/General_Orders.pdf

318.4 CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTERSOfficers are encouraged to initiate interviews with people of the community in order to gain athorough knowledge and become an integral part of the community.(a) Except as specifically prohibited by general orders, officers may talk to a person atany time, for any reason, in performance of their duties.(b) An interview should be conversational and not confrontational.(c) A consensual encounter is not a stop or arrest and there is no intent to inhibit anyrights or freedoms of a person. The person has the right to:1. Fail to respond to the officer.2. Refuse to identify themselves.3. Walk away from the officer.(d) Negative inferences will not be made based on a person's refusal to cooperate in theinterview.
Still photographs of persons interviewed during a consensual encounter shall not betaken without the person's permission. Verbal consent shall be captured using theBWC recording system. When the BWC system is unavailable, the DMAV system shallbe used. The officer shall document the consent in the appropriate incident report,supplement, or FO card. Officers should refer to General Order 303 (Body WornCamera Systems) for further guidelines.(f) Officers will not inquire into a person's immigration status during a consensualencounter.

What does this mean? I think it means if I am sitting at a public park bench and APD walks up to me and says didn't I see you at the grocery store yesterday? And he goes to take my picture and I decline, he is prohibited by policy and since APD policy often has a legal basis, it's probably unlawful as well if I am not being detained and I don't consent. So the officer walks away and up next the store manager walks by and says didn't I see you at my grocery story yesterday? He doesn't need my consent to take my picture with his cellphone or his drone.

TL;DR

For some reason you're just not "getting" the simple point I'm making. Let's move on.

 

[mavic3usa]

TL;DR

For some reason you're just not "getting" the simple point I'm making. Let's move on.

Oh I get your point ok. I just disagree with it. The government doesn't have rights. They have powers they derive from the people and the people get to determine how far it goes and doesn't go. The same rights that I have to do something are NOT the same for the authorities. Not even close. I believe in transparency for the government, not privacy. So yeah I get your simple point, it's just that I can't agree to the "overlap" or even the similarities; too dangerous to get it confused.

 

[singram]

So much nonsense, manufactured drama and BS in this thread.

Calm down, be reasonable. If others aren't reasonable, don't try to "fix them." Follow the rules and stop freaking out over nothing. Life is too short for all the crazy.

I 1000% agree. As much as I appreciate all the knowledge I've gleaned from mavicpilots.com, holy hell is it getting anxiety inducing. It seems 90% of the members here are walking around with some sort of Karen PTSD.

Then I get out and actually fly a drone around my neighborhood, in my suburban city center, in rural areas west of the city, at least once a week in downtown Chicago and guess what- NOBODY. GIVES. A. ****.

 

[Kuiper Denizen]

Oh I get your point ok. I just disagree with it. The government doesn't have rights. They have powers they derive from the people and the people get to determine how far it goes and doesn't go. The same rights that I have to do something are NOT the same for the authorities. Not even close. I believe in transparency for the government, not privacy. So yeah I get your simple point, it's just that I can't agree to the "overlap" or even the similarities; too dangerous to get it confused.

Exactly!!!

The government has the power and resources of, well, the government!

Our Constitution is a carefully written and, when needs be, amended “rules” book that requires a strict adherence to guidelines that prevent an abuse of that power.

This ongoing discussion of what a private citizen can do and a law enforcement agency can’t do fails to recognize what the intent of either’s “observations” is.

If the intent of law enforcement is to bring criminal charges against someone, then the evidence must be, itself, obtained legally, otherwise the court will disallow its use at trial.

If the intent of a private citizen is just “rubbernecking,” then no law is being broken. If the intent was voyeurism, and the complainant can prove it, then a law was broken.

Publishing a nude picture without the consent of the subject goes a long way to showing an existing intent or an intent of opportunity.

It’s up to the judge and/or the jury to review the evidence and render a judgement.

This becomes akin to judging the shade of a color, determined, more or less, on the opinion of the “judger.”

If the verdict is “not guilty,” the case is over.

Other outcomes can be appealed.