Don't sweat it, most of here know what you meant. There's a couple of posters in this forum who take things to a personal level all the time, especially with me. I've learned to mostly ignore it and you are right, it's best to let them have the last say or the last post and just move along until the next time. All the frustrations and pressures we are under these days, people reach differently and it affects people in different ways so it's understandable. We perfectly know well that you (or most drone pilots) don't have their drones so they can go spying on others in their backyards. I'm a big MYOB kind of person and I certainly believe that about myself as well.
Florida.... Cannot fly over people's houses? According to https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/0766
- Thread starter qwerty53
- Start date
Mike52
Member
The statute is section 934.50, Florida Statutes, and is entitled the “Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act.” Here’s a link to the statute. Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Most of it regulates use of drones by law enforcement or other governmental actors. However, it does forbid “persons”from recording images with the intent of “conducting surveillance” as follows:
“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, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.” S. 934.50(3)(b), F.S. (emphasis supplied)
The statute defines “surveillance” as:
“1. With respect to an owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property, the observation of such persons with sufficient visual clarity to be able to obtain information about their identity, habits, conduct, movements, or whereabouts; or
2. With respect to privately owned real property, the observation of such property’s physical improvements with sufficient visual clarity to be able to determine unique identifying features or its occupancy by one or more persons.” S. 934.50(2)(e) 1. and 2., F.S.
The statute does not provide a criminal penalty for its violation; rather, it allows individuals to bring civil actions for compensatory damages and injunctive relief, and in certain circumstances, punitive damages. It also provides that the prevailing party in such an action is entitled to attorney’s fees. See S. 934.50(5)(b), (c) and (d), F.S.
Most of it regulates use of drones by law enforcement or other governmental actors. However, it does forbid “persons”from recording images with the intent of “conducting surveillance” as follows:
“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, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.” S. 934.50(3)(b), F.S. (emphasis supplied)
The statute defines “surveillance” as:
“1. With respect to an owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property, the observation of such persons with sufficient visual clarity to be able to obtain information about their identity, habits, conduct, movements, or whereabouts; or
2. With respect to privately owned real property, the observation of such property’s physical improvements with sufficient visual clarity to be able to determine unique identifying features or its occupancy by one or more persons.” S. 934.50(2)(e) 1. and 2., F.S.
The statute does not provide a criminal penalty for its violation; rather, it allows individuals to bring civil actions for compensatory damages and injunctive relief, and in certain circumstances, punitive damages. It also provides that the prevailing party in such an action is entitled to attorney’s fees. See S. 934.50(5)(b), (c) and (d), F.S.
Wow, so many "exceptions" for the right people built into that law, obviously to keep them out of trouble. No wonder Florida residents feel it is ok to use force against a drone which is violating their privacy. Their defense is they used the minimum amount of force to prevent the drone from invading their privacy which they never signed off and they had no idea if the drone was official or not because it had no visible markings.
The only possible charges are for residents who live inside city limits where you can discharge a firearm and if the intruder is an actual violator, none of these charges are going to stick. In the meantime, federal laws (as usually) don't apply in Florida.
The only possible charges are for residents who live inside city limits where you can discharge a firearm and if the intruder is an actual violator, none of these charges are going to stick. In the meantime, federal laws (as usually) don't apply in Florida.
I fully understand your intended humor, in both cases. But drone peeping at children is just not a humorous topic to me.
Voyeurism is one of the primary issues that anti-drone people cite as cause for concern.
