Do you think this is a sensible flight, even if legal ( UK ), and do you think it is wise to publish it ? NOT mine, I won't fly in a town full stop ..

[Droning on and on...]

Since when you do expect privacy in your outdoor garden open to the skies above?

Answering this in general (i.e. the public) and not me specifically: Since, well, the Big Bang (i.e. the beginning of time).

Noting there has been general aviation flying overhead for the last century is not a counter-argument. People's expectation in their enclosed yards is they have overhead privacy, as aircraft don't usually fly low enough to threaten it.

Drones have completely changed that, and people feel threatened. That's why it keeps coming up.

We must compromise to live together. Loitering around looking at people in their backyards is something I'm pretty confident the general public doesn't like, and won't accept.

So if people don't at present have a right to privacy from drones over their yards, the surest way to get one on the books is engage in this activity.

Oh, and when confronted, get all chest-thumping about how the FAA controls the airspace, blah blah blah you have a right to fly there.

Lickety-split there's a local ordinance against it, you're fined and your drone confiscated, and it's up to you to fight it all by yourself. As has been demonstrated time and again in cases like this, you and your situation are too small and minor of a flea for the FAA to get involved with.

I imagine this plays out about the same in the UK, Australia, France, Luxembourg, Eritrea, and other fun places around the globe.

Respect. Each other. Goes a long way.

 

[mavic3usa]

Answering this in general (i.e. the public) and not me specifically: Since, well, the Big Bang (i.e. the beginning of time).

Noting there has been general aviation flying overhead for the last century is not a counter-argument. People's expectation in their enclosed yards is they have overhead privacy, as aircraft don't usually fly low enough to threaten it.

Drones have completely changed that, and people feel threatened. That's why it keeps coming up.

We must compromise to live together. Loitering around looking at people in their backyards is something I'm pretty confident the general public doesn't like, and won't accept.

So if people don't at present have a right to privacy from drones over their yards, the surest way to get one on the books is engage in this activity.

Oh, and when confronted, get all chest-thumping about how the FAA controls the airspace, blah blah blah you have a right to fly there.

Lickety-split there's a local ordinance against it, you're fined and your drone confiscated, and it's up to you to fight it all by yourself. As has been demonstrated time and again in cases like this, you and your situation are too small and minor of a flea for the FAA to get involved with.

I imagine this plays out about the same in the UK, Australia, France, Luxembourg, Eritrea, and other fun places around the globe.

Respect. Each other. Goes a long way.

And thus was born the drone auditor movement similar to others that has swept the country and created a nationwide epidemic that has brought awareness to millions if not practically everybody in the country and a lot of the rest of to world. And people wonder how these movements get started. Ask the UK how drone auditors are working out for them.

 

[mavic_minis_fly_away]

It goes to show that you need to be very careful before claiming people are breaking the law.

It's the last time I trust dronesafetymap.com.

 

[Murph66]

Give me green fields , rivers , wide open spaces ,scenery and the sea anytime

 

[Droning on and on...]

And thus was born the drone auditor movement similar to others that has swept the country and created a nationwide epidemic that has brought awareness to millions if not practically everybody in the country and a lot of the rest of to world. And people wonder how these movements get started. Ask the UK how drone auditors are working out for them.

Nationwide epidemic?!??!!?

Don't know what you do for a living, but you have a promising future in advertising, particularly treatments for male "thingy" enlargement

 

[mavic3usa]

Nationwide epidemic?!??!!?

Don't know what you do for a living, but you have a promising future in advertising, particularly treatments for male "thingy" enlargement

Obviously being sarcastic but when an auditor shows up with a camera and a dozen armed officers show up within 5 minutes, what would you call it?

 

[Robert Prior]

But I wouldn't want to fly over blah blah blah so I would rather crash it somewhere safe than fly over such an area.
And yes it has happened, a gust came up and took a drone towards a village and I was about to CSC it into the sea when the gust died and I 'regained control'.

Years ago a light plane lost its engine over Toronto, and the pilot (70-something female, IIRC) decided to land in an open field she spotted. Which was the playground of an elementary school. During recess. When it was filled with children running around.

Fortunately she landed in a tree just before the playground, and had to be rescued by a fire department ladder. I have a picture of the treed airplane somewhere (I was teaching at a nearby high school at the time and wandered over at lunchtime to have a look).

A friend of mine at the time, an air force pilot, was absolutely aghast that the pilot would rather land a playground filled with children than crash. His opinion was that any pilot who would choose to endanger others just to increase their own safety shouldn't be in charge of a plane.

I've always remembered his comments when flying my drone, which is why my flight plan includes finding places to crash-land if necessary. Drone-eating trees are usually a good option

 

[Droning on and on...]

Obviously being sarcastic but when an auditor shows up with a camera and a dozen armed officers show up within 5 minutes, what would you call it?

Not "epidemic"

 

[Robert Prior]

For me, the issue with sub 250g drones is not safety but privacy. As far as I'm aware, there are no provisions in existing legislation to protect privacy.

Don't know about the UK, but in Canada our privacy legislation applies to drones too.

Privacy guidelines for drone users

Privacy guidelines for drone operators; including recreational, commercial, and government users.

tc.canada.ca

A while back there was a video someone shot of a drone hovering outside the window of their condo, multiple floors above the ground, and there was much to-do about it in the Vancouver press. Was someone peeping in the window of tenth-floor bedrooms? The horror!

As a photographer I looked at the condo building behind the drone and laughed, because any of its windows could have concealed a camera with a telephoto lens owned by a voyeur smart enough not to use a really noisy cell phone camera that attracted attention.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Years ago a light plane lost its engine over Toronto, and the pilot (70-something female, IIRC) decided to land in an open field she spotted. Which was the playground of an elementary school. During recess. When it was filled with children running around.

Fortunately she landed in a tree just before the playground, and had to be rescued by a fire department ladder. I have a picture of the treed airplane somewhere (I was teaching at a nearby high school at the time and wandered over at lunchtime to have a look).

A friend of mine at the time, an air force pilot, was absolutely aghast that the pilot would rather land a playground filled with children than crash. His opinion was that any pilot who would choose to endanger others just to increase their own safety shouldn't be in charge of a plane.

I've always remembered his comments when flying my drone, which is why my flight plan includes finding places to crash-land if necessary. Drone-eating trees are usually a good option

Not defending that Pilot, not at all. I'd point out, however, that survival instinct is strong, and panic causes irrational thinking.

None of that comes into play ditching a UAS. We haven't evolved to panic over that

 

[Droning on and on...]

Don't know about the UK, but in Canada our privacy legislation applies to drones too.

Privacy guidelines for drone users

Privacy guidelines for drone operators; including recreational, commercial, and government users.

tc.canada.ca

A while back there was a video someone shot of a drone hovering outside the window of their condo, multiple floors above the ground, and there was much to-do about it in the Vancouver press. Was someone peeping in the window of tenth-floor bedrooms? The horror!

As a photographer I looked at the condo building behind the drone and laughed, because any of its windows could have concealed a camera with a telephoto lens owned by a voyeur smart enough not to use a really noisy cell phone camera that attracted attention.

Here's where the flippancy ("the horror!") of your comments doesn't compute for me: I don't think invading ones privacy is okay whether you use a drone or a long telephoto lens through a window. It's just harder to catch the latter.

I have a strong feeling the vast majority of the public sees this the same way. Whether drone hobbyists like it or not is utterly irrelevant. As is current law which, if enough people get pissed off, will change.

Please don't do things like that, folks. Drone or Nikon.

 

[Robert Prior]

Here's where the flippancy ("the horror!") of your comments doesn't compute for me: I don't think invading ones privacy is okay whether you use a drone or a long telephoto lens through a window.

I wish I could find the article, because it was very much drones-end-privacy while totally ignoring all the ways that the condo owner didn't actually have the privacy they obviously thought they had — hence my flippancy. I would have expected a reporter to at least point out the gaps in their logic in the article, even if they didn't bring them up in the interview.

I've lived in apartments with other apartments across the street. If you have a unit which faces other units, it's pretty much a given that you can see into your neighbour's windows (and they into your's). If you want privacy, use curtains.

You may legally have an expectation of privacy inside your home, but if someone is on public property (or their own home) and can see inside your home the onus is on you to use a privacy barrier. Legally, and frankly practically. Otherwise you're like the crazy parent who puts a kiddie pool in their front yard and then shouts at anyone who looks at their squealing kids.

So if you're upset that a drone can see through your window but not that a neighbour across the street can do the same, IMHO you're irrationally panicking. It's like someone getting upset about a photographer in a park with an SLR who might be photographing them, while ignoring all the cell phones, GoPros, etc. (Been there, done that. Even had a woman insist that I had no right to take pictures in the park, while videoing me with her phone.)

 

[Droning on and on...]

There are codified rules, and there are social rules and expectations.

Just because something isn't legally prohibited, doesn't mean it's okay to do it, or should you.

Just because you can sit on a park bench and spend hours with a long lens photographing children on the play structures doesn't mean you should.

In fact, I say you should not. Regardless of the law. I'm curious what you say, Robert.

I'm concerned that some here, in the way they speak about respecting other's privacy concerns don't seem to think they need to. A lot of behavior, in fact most, isn't practical to control with legal sanction. Rather "getting along" in public social settings is really what defines appropriate behavior.

You may have a right to look across your street from your apartment into another with a telescope, but you shouldn't. Doing so is what feuds are born of, and the aggrieved party may then cross socially acceptable lines, perfectly legally, making your life unpleasant.

Which escalates until someone does cross a legal limit. And someone gets shot.

 

[Droning on and on...]

So if you're upset that a drone can see through your window but not that a neighbour across the street can do the same, IMHO you're irrationally panicking.

Let's be clear: I'm not upset that this can happen. I'd be upset when it happened, if it did.

You and I are simply of a different view w.r.t. privacy. I don't think it reasonable for someone to have to block off all windows in their home to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Do I understand correctly that you do?

Seems to me my POV is shared by the community at large, resulting in "Peeping Tom" laws. Drones are a tool just making it easier.

 

[Robert Prior]

You and I are simply of a different view w.r.t. privacy. I don't think it reasonable for someone to have to block off all windows in their home to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Do I understand correctly that you do?

No, I just think that singling out drones as tools for privacy invasion is misguided.

If you live somewhere where your windows are visible from a public space, or from someone's private space, then it is unreasonable to panic about drones but not about people walking their dogs, looking out their windows (and into your's) and so forth.

I've lived places where I could leave my curtains open and no one could see in and enjoyed the light. I've also lived in places where any passerby could look in my windows (basement apartment), and had my curtains closed most of the time.

When I moved into my current house one of the things I did was turn on the lights and walk around it at night to see what I could see, to decide which windows needed covering for privacy. The answer turned out to be all of them, even the second-story windows — because my neighbours also have second-story windows and are close enough that they could see inside my house if they looked out their windows. I shut the blinds on my bedroom window when changing, because with the floor-to-ceiling picture window I'd be flashing anyone on the street if they looked up even during the daytime, and the last thing my neighbours need to see is my wrinkly old body.

If I saw a drone hovering in the street it wouldn't bother me in terms of privacy, because it could see nothing more than what my neighbours can already see.

We already have privacy legislation in Canada. It covers drones, not specifically because it is technology-neutral, but it covers them.

Privacy laws may not mention drones by name but these laws do apply to pictures, videos or other information collected by a drone.

Privacy guidelines for drone users

Privacy guidelines for drone operators; including recreational, commercial, and government users.

tc.canada.ca

My argument is that we don't need extra legislation for drones, any more than we need extra legislation for telephoto lenses. And if you are in a location where someone's Mark I eyeball can see you without them trespassing, then you would have a very hard time arguing in court that you had a legal right to absolute privacy at that location.

 

[Robert Prior]

Just because you can sit on a park bench and spend hours with a long lens photographing children on the play structures doesn't mean you should.

In fact, I say you should not. Regardless of the law. I'm curious what you say, Robert.

I make a point of not photographing people without asking first (unless they are performers) because I hate having my picture taken. That said, I understand street photography is a recognized genre and some people do it, and that it is legal (within limits).

The situation you described is one that would bother me. But then, I'd be bothered if I took my grandniece to the playground and someone was recording their kid with a cell phone while they were playing with my grandniece, too.

Sitting on a park bench with a telephoto lens isn't a crime, nor should it be. Under Canadian law what counts isn't the lens, but what you use it for.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Robert, I'm not discussing "panic". Please let's drop that.

I'm speaking of drone use that most people would find intrusive, not panic-inducing.

I find most people to be pretty reasonable. A drone flying along over a street doesn't bother most people.

A drone hovering 10 feet from a bedroom window does. Some here in past discussions have argued, strongly, that they have a right to do that. Or hover 50 feet over someone's backyard. "The FAA has exclusive jurisdiction over that airspace" is oft heard as a defense.

I consider this missing the forest for the trees. People consider such privacy situations as real and sacrosanct. As such, arguments over jurisdiction notwithstanding, we have an expanding patchwork of local and state laws throughout the country prohibiting drones from doing these things. Valid or not.

I don't want more and more drone laws either. That's why I try and make the case for respecting others privacy concerns, being reasonably deferential to them. So we don't wind up with ever more restrictive laws that go too far.

We are a tiny minority. Most people don't care about anyone's "right" to fly if they feel their privacy concerns are being ignored. If the general public pretty much agrees that those concerns are legitimate, who do you think is going to win that fight when it comes to law?

Better not to have that fight in the first place. Pretty easy to do... don't do anything with your flying camera you wouldn't do with a land-based camera. I wouldn't climb the hill behind someone's house, set up a tripod, and surveil their backyard. Just because it's easier with a drone doesn't make it okay.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I make a point of not photographing people without asking first (unless they are performers) because I hate having my picture taken.

Well there we go! Me too. Neither of us do this because we'll be jailed if we don't. We do that because it's the ethically and socially right thing to do, and we respect our fellow travelers on this mortal coil.

That said, I understand street photography is a recognized genre and some people do it, and that it is legal (within limits).

Again, reasonable, and most people see it that way. This is the sort of "rules" I'm talking about.

The situation you described is one that would bother me. But then, I'd be bothered if I took my grandniece to the playground and someone was recording their kid with a cell phone while they were playing with my grandniece, too.

Great example. It's an edge case. Similar but not on the edge, in my judgement was a ~4yo boy at a Friday evening concert that was dancing, and it was beyond adorable. I wanted to get some clips and share them with my sisters. Didn't do it without asking the mom first. She was totally cool about it, i shared the video with her.

Sitting on a park bench with a telephoto lens isn't a crime, nor should it be. Under Canadian law what counts isn't the lens, but what you use it for.

Agree. And I don't want to see a labyrinth of laws created because again and again it's being used for the wrong reason.

Back to drones, how do we keep that from happening? Self-policing! When a fellow member insists on anti-social behavior with drones, we need to discourage it. Explain that there's more to this than strictly what the law says. Ignore that, and eventually the law will address it. Being an imperfect, blunt instrument, drone enthusiasts will be the losers as we are also then constrained where we don't need to be.

At that point, such complaints by the annoying drone community will fall on deaf ears.

We're smarter than the average individual. Use common sense. Respect others privacy, as we all generally understand the concept. That will keep our flying opportunities as free and broad as possible.

 

[Robert Prior]

Robert, I'm not discussing "panic". Please let's drop that.

I mentioned panic because the article I read about the drone in Vancouver was basically panicking about it. "Oh noes, a drone, whatever are they doing? My privacy is being violated! Oh, the outrage!"

Which is why I wish I could find the article, because my flippancy was a reaction to its tone. There were many legitimate concerns that the reporter could have raised, with a modicum of research. Such as safety issues (drone over public street), legal issues (close to people and buildings, in controlled airspace), and so on, but instead they wrote a piece panicking about privacy.

I once had a conversation with someone who was worried about drones secretly following them and spying on them. I flew my drone and showed them the screen, and they were surprised that it wasn't of a resolution to let them read a newspaper over their shoulder, and at how loud the drone was. (I think they got their idea about drone capabilities from Hollywood special effects.) I flew up to 120 m (maximum legal altitude here) and they could still hear it and see it, and could no longer recognize themselves, which basically allayed their fears of being secretly followed.

Back to drones, how do we keep that from happening? Self-policing! When a fellow member insists on anti-social behavior with drones, we need to discourage it. Explain that there's more to this than strictly what the law says.

I don't know about American laws, but up here the Canadian Criminal Code does cover the issue, and our court have ruled on it.

For example, all drone footage is covered by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

I will also note that Transport Canada has a form for drone complaints, and one of the reasons is privacy.

Report a drone incident

How to report an incident involving drones.

tc.canada.ca

Personally, I'm more worried about people flying BVLOS, breaking altitude limits, and flying in controlled airspace (all of which I've seen posts here where the poster thinks they are a 'safe pilot' so they should be able to ignore the 'stupid law').

(And parenthetically, both confirmed drone-strikes in Canada were caused by breaking one or more of those laws. One by a drone pilot flying at 2500', the other by a police pilot flying BVLOS in controlled airspace, in an approach path of an airport, without notifying the airport.)

Edit to correct VLOS to BVLOS.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Personally, I'm more worried about people flying VLOS, breaking altitude limits, and flying in controlled airspace (all of which I've seen posts here where the poster thinks they are a 'safe pilot' so they should be able to ignore the 'stupid law').

I think you meant BVLOS?

In any case, I'd point out these are rather parochial concerns (that I share), known only to pilots. The general public is completely ignorant to airspace management concerns and the minutiae of it. "Make it safe when I fly" is about the extent of general knowledge and interest in such things.

Privacy on the other hand, is an entirely different animal. And there are many more of them than us. Guess what policy viewpoints get elected to office?

This is the very reason we're even having this discussion. And Canadian law seems to reflect that, at least what you've cited.