I thought this would be the TOPIC.
I wonder. Those of us who just want to enjoy our hobby and stick to the rules find it frustrating when the goal posts keep moving every time the winds blow in another direction.So it's OK to fly a manned aircraft over the Senators' home and take pictures of him in his backyard in his underwear, but not an unmanned aircraft. If the government points the high-res, ultra zoom camera on one of its unmanned satellites at the senators house...would that be a felony too?
The FAA had better start making this crystal clear.
Yes, I think you are right. It is up to a state legislature to determine what shall be considered an invasion of privacy within the state and then up to a state or federal court to determine if it is legal under state or federal constituition.It seems what the AZ legislators (and this Senator is talking about) are trying to do is impose privacy type protection. I feel if someone mad a report and says you're flying too close, too low, close enough to actually be invading someones privacy, then it would be up to courts to decide if the pilot was hovering too long or low etc to actually be flying mischievously or nefariously.
Yes, it would be up to the state or county prosecutor to prove a crime but many of the states give right to pursue private civil action to property owner.The onus would be on the states to prove this, though a pilot in their defense could submit a flight log, footage etc that would support privacy invasion wasn't present.
If this or other states tried to make it blanket to ban flying UAVs over homes / private property, then the legislation could easily be made redundant as federal FAA legislation overrides state law.
Yes, it would be up to the state or county prosecutor to prove a crime but many of the states give right to pursue private civil action to property owner.
**** good question. I'll hazard a wild guess that "official" use for surveillance purposes is perfectly kosher, for example: a couple of years back, French authorities used drones fielding facial recognition software to monitor demonstrations against their then-new security bill. But Gods forbid a private owner overflies anyone's garden in case someone might be sunning themselves like a hippo.In Canada here, the regs state to keep 100' above structures. And it's prudent to be passing over and not lingering over private property. Are the proposed regs going to stop planes from passing over people's homes as well?
Maybe all of this is convenient for some law firm. But they tend to do that anyways.As mentioned here in many posts, the down side of being right, is there is still a lot of time and $ to go through court action, even if you are sure to win.
Sometimes in some cases it'd be best to be flexible in reconciling such things (and remain sane, unstressed, etc).
The world is getting a lot more litigious in general, and I guess the USA has a reputation for legal recourse being taken quite liberally at times.
I think if a flight was proven to be under FAA guidelines, and a state court case ruled a flight didn't impede on anyone's privacy, it'd have to be a bit of an uphill battle for someone to pursue and prove such in a civil case, but then a lot of people are wronged by courts in such cases, and of course the same cost to a defendant in time and $ is still present.
EXACTLY!So it's OK to fly a manned aircraft over the Senators' home and take pictures of him in his backyard in his underwear, but not an unmanned aircraft. If the government points the high-res, ultra zoom camera on one of its unmanned satellites at the senators house...would that be a felony too?
Yep. I actually spoke with him about this. I knew him when he was a code enforcement officer in a small west valley city. Made it a point to tell him this legislation did not seem like his style at all. Reading the current amendments to the bill though, it is clear it has been self-neutered.I wrote the AZ legislator ( Senator Kern) and voiced my opposition to the creation of additional legislation that would most likely be challenged by the FAA unless modified. I also forwarded the 51Drones YT video by Russ on this subject and included a link to the White paper mentioned in said video.
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, we'll see.....