Florida fliers: Don't publicly post aerial pictures or videos of others' private property

[erkme73]

Admittedly this is a dated article, but a neighbor just posted it on a neighborhood forum...

Getting a drone for Christmas? Here's how to stay out of trouble with the law

Any rules unique to Florida I should know about?

Yes. The Florida Legislature passed a law earlier this year that restricts how drones can be used in the state.

In short, it's illegal to take pictures from the air of someone or their property without permission, as long as they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

So spying on your neighbors from the air? As of July, when the law was enacted, that's illegal.​

Seems like an overreach. Comments?

 

[erkme73]

And this article is even more specific about the 2015 law and what it means for hobby fliers...

This is actual text from the law as passed:

For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned or occupied 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.
​

That's quite scary. As I read this, any images take that are higher than ground/street level are considered an invasion of privacy.

I can't help but wonder how this doesn't run afoul of First Amendment protections in terms of public interest or news gathering capabilities.

​

 

[Andrew F]

And this article is even more specific about the 2015 law and what it means for hobby fliers...

This is actual text from the law as passed:

For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned or occupied 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.
​

That's quite scary. As I read this, any images take that are higher than ground/street level are considered an invasion of privacy.

I can't help but wonder how this doesn't run afoul of First Amendment protections in terms of public interest or news gathering capabilities.

​

Google Earth is going to jail!!! Haha.

 

[Anthony Viscomi]

I guess the difference is that Google Earth is not "real time"

 

[DonB]

Being from FL the wording is specific using "with the intent of surveillance".

With that being said no one has ever bothered me except when I used it in an unpopulated state park. Apparently you can not take off from a state park even with no one around you.


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

 

[v8juice]

So if you aren't recording any video or taking pictures during the flight are you violating the law?

 

[erkme73]

Being from FL the wording is specific using "with the intent of surveillance".

With that being said no one has ever bothered me except when I used it in an unpopulated state park. Apparently you can not take off from a state park even with no one around you.


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

Well, according to the attorney that wrote the article at the second link I posted above, that's a very subjective term:

Meaning of ‘surveillance’

One of the amendments to Section 934.50 passed in 2015 creates a definition for the term “surveillance,” as follows:

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.

The language may seem understandable, but don’t count on it staying that way for long.

Conceivably, every picture taken with a drone would fall into this definition of “surveillance.” It’s not so difficult to take a picture with “sufficient visual clarity” to determine whose house you’re looking at. Google Maps will do that for you—and they’re working from satellite photos.

I guess on the upside, this does not appear to be a criminal statute. Thus, the police cannot use this to order the operator to stop or issue a citation. Instead, the aggrieved party is given substantial legal incentive to sue the operator for damages. That, in and of itself wouldn't go anywhere. But since the statute expressly allows the winning party to recover attorney's fees, it will make it much more likely that a law firm would accept such a case.

 

[erkme73]

So if you aren't recording any video or taking pictures during the flight are you violating the law?

I wouldn't think so. And even if you were taking photos/video, it would be up to the 'victim' to be able to prove that a) you were recording their property/being, and b) they suffered some form of injury as a result. I may be way off base, but that's how I read it.

 

[Jake Galloway]

I guess we better ban smart phones from taking pictures too, or blur out the backgrounds that might have houses in the background lol

 

[Andrew F]

I guess the difference is that Google Earth is not "real time"

There are a lot of differences but the law, as written, doesn't call them out. So if you turn off your live streaming you'd be the same as Google Earth. The devil is in the details.

 

[erkme73]

I guess we better ban smart phones from taking pictures too, or blur out the backgrounds that might have houses in the background lol

No, not really. The law, called "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act", is FS934.50, and applies only to unmanned aerial platforms. Not ladders, tall buildings, or manned aircraft. And that's the Achilles heal of the law. I've spent the better part of today reading various interpretations and discussions about it, and where it will probably fail on judicial review is the fact that it applies only to one type of technology.

If the issue was really privacy, then the law would be technology neutral. In fact, existing laws that deal with privacy (i.e. wiretap) are all devoid of technology descriptors. This particular law goes out of its way to pinpoint drones that are "higher than street level".

If you don't post images of other peoples' properties on line, where they can take civil action against you for violating their "expectation of privacy", there would be no case.

This particular statute does not define any enforcement/punishment section. It does indicate REMEDIES - but they're all civil action brought by the victim, not the state.

 

[VietVet]

No, not really. The law, called "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act", is FS934.50, and applies only to unmanned aerial platforms. Not ladders, tall buildings, or manned aircraft. And that's the Achilles heal of the law. I've spent the better part of today reading various interpretations and discussions about it, and where it will probably fail on judicial review is the fact that it applies only to one type of technology.

If the issue was really privacy, then the law would be technology neutral. In fact, existing laws that deal with privacy (i.e. wiretap) are all devoid of technology descriptors. This particular law goes out of its way to pinpoint drones that are "higher than street level".

If you don't post images of other peoples' properties on line, where they can take civil action against you for violating their "expectation of privacy", there would be no case.

This particular statute does not define any enforcement/punishment section. It does indicate REMEDIES - but they're all civil action brought by the victim, not the state.

The problem with what you have submitted is at what dollar cost will you need to fight and win the case and who here has the money to fight the law. Unfortunately the bureaucrats have unlimited funds to fight you and I (our tax dollars) and the average guy is very limited.

 

[VietVet]

And this article is even more specific about the 2015 law and what it means for hobby fliers...

This is actual text from the law as passed:

For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned or occupied 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.
​

That's quite scary. As I read this, any images take that are higher than ground/street level are considered an invasion of privacy.

I can't help but wonder how this doesn't run afoul of First Amendment protections in terms of public interest or news gathering capabilities.

​

@erkm73 - Politicians have a way of creating laws so they can say they created a law but notice how they never place a law that has real impact on our lives, like lowering taxes? So if a neighbor has surveillance cameras on his home at the roof level he is in violation of the privacy act? There are so many cameras on buildings in all of Florida at elevation to match a quad they must all be in violation? Stupid bureaucrats.

 

[erkme73]

Unfortunately, I don't know how you can challenge this law. Since all this law does is open the door to civil actions against drone operators (vs. the state actually issuing fines, confiscating equipment, or charging operators with a crime), I don't know how one could obtain legal standing to challenge it. If you're an operator who gets sued by your neighbor, you will be spending all your resources to defend yourself against the suit.

 

[erkme73]

@erkm73 - Politicians have a way of creating laws so they can say they created a law but notice how they never place a law that has real impact on our lives, like lowering taxes? So if a neighbor has surveillance cameras on his home at the roof level he is in violation of the privacy act? There are so many cameras on buildings in all of Florida at elevation to match a quad they must all be in violation? Stupid bureaucrats.

Since that statute only impacts aerial platforms, it restricts our Mavics, but not someone with a cellphone held over a fence, or as you say, a surveillance camera mounted high on the roof of a neighboring house. What this law does is creates opportunity for ambulance-chasing attorneys to drum up cases (on contingency, of course).

One firm that has been incredibly successful at suing anything that breaths has already set up a webpage soliciting victims:

For the People....



How long before we start seeing "XYZ law firm got me $400k after my neighbor filmed me in my backyard!!" commercials.

 

[HeavensAbove]

Since that statute only impacts aerial platforms, it restricts our Mavics, but not someone with a cellphone held over a fence, or as you say, a surveillance camera mounted high on the roof of a neighboring house. What this law does is creates opportunity for ambulance-chasing attorneys to drum up cases (on contingency, of course).

One firm that has been incredibly successful at suing anything that breaths has already set up a webpage soliciting victims:

For the People....

View attachment 4121

How long before we start seeing "XYZ law firm got me $400k after my neighbor filmed me in my backyard!!" commercials.

Better call Saul!


Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

 

[DonB]

So based on what I'm reading, every single video that shows anything other than your property or self which is filmed in FL and posted online is illegal? Seems like there would already be a lot of civil suits in the court system already. Again, Im not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem the law addresses how they will prove that their privacy has been compromised (unless you post your videos online), are the police authorized to confiscate your drone without proof of a violation?

I have also recently had a security system installed in my home which has outside video recording, the company that set it up was very careful regards to what the cameras are recording and essentially restricted the video to only record my property. They were obviously concerned about the privacy rights of my neighbors.

 

[frankiez]

Being from FL the wording is specific using "with the intent of surveillance".

With that being said no one has ever bothered me except when I used it in an unpopulated state park. Apparently you can not take off from a state park even with no one around you.


Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

What?! You mean I cant go fly my Mavic at a state park?

sent from my Galaxy Note4

 

[DonB]

What?! You mean I cant go fly my Mavic at a state park?

sent from my Galaxy Note4

Apparently its against FL law to take off from a state park, doesn't mean you cant fly over it, just can take off from one. I have not been able to verify this, but it was what the park authorities told me.

 

[DonB]

Apparently its against FL law to take off from a state park, doesn't mean you cant fly over it, just can take off from one. I have not been able to verify this, but it was what the park authorities told me.

F.A.C. 62D-2.014 (Activities and Recreation)

(15) Aircraft. No person operating or responsible for any aircraft, glider, balloon, parachute, or other aerial apparatus shall cause such an apparatus to take off from or land in any park except in an emergency when human life is endangered or where a designated landing facility may exist on park property.