Giving us a bad name

Chip · May 7, 2022

Here is the LAPD auditor video I referred to earlier. It was originally posted by kjonyou. Its interesting to compare it to the UK video referenced in OP. I think the police officers handled this well, going toe to toe with "auditor" over drone, trespass and privacy law without losing cool.

gordongate · May 7, 2022

Jamesz said:
I think it's wrong to use the term 'a Karen' do describe someone who complains about what you are doing. They may be right or wrong, but maybe just see things differently to you and have a genuine concern. To use a belittling term like this can make pilots appear arrogant in their attitude to other citizens. You only need to mention the nature of the complaint, not to stereotype the person as a kind of lesser being.

Anyone who refuses to learn and understand how new technology works when given the opportunity to learn about what it is being used for is a “ Karen”. Using the police to force their feelings on anyone makes them ignorant and biased. Are they a lesser being? probably not but definitely stupid.

mattcaz · May 8, 2022

DSRT_VLTR said:
Way too many bad actors out there. Don't know what it's like in the UK, but where I live in Phoenix AZ, there has been an increase over the past few months of people shining green lasers at helicopters all over the city and planes landing at Sky Harbor, for the sole purpose of bringing down manned aircraft for a thrill. I've lost faith in humanity decades ago, but this is just downright evil.

I live in Far East Mesa and yes, in the Phx area we have more than our fair share of Nutjobs and activist losers!

mattcaz · May 8, 2022

Chip said:
Here is the LAPD auditor video I referred to earlier. It was originally posted by kjonyou. Its interesting to compare it to the UK video referenced in OP. I think the police officers handled this well, going toe to toe with "auditor" over drone, trespass and privacy law without losing cool.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

These police have no idea about who controls the airspace above the ground. And the statement he made about seeing personal objects inside a police car to me is bunk because the police cars are paid for by the taxpayers and are not "Private Vehicles". I guess I see things differently than some on here having had this same issue with being told by the uninformed Security Officer that I can't fly my drone from public property and fly over a construction site here in Mesa, AZ.

dirkclod · May 8, 2022

Guys if we can’t stop calling peeople names wether or not they are droners I will close this the next time I see it posted. .
Last chance.
dc

Chip · May 8, 2022

mattcaz said:
These police have no idea about who controls the airspace above the ground. And the statement he made about seeing personal objects inside a police car to me is bunk because the police cars are paid for by the taxpayers and are not "Private Vehicles". I guess I see things differently than some on here having had this same issue with being told by the uninformed Security Officer that I can't fly my drone from public property and fly over a construction site here in Mesa, AZ.

The issue raised by the video is whether its legal in LA CA to fly a drone over a fence and over the LAPD parking lot and record images of officers and the interior of police vehicles? I think the police officer fairly accurately recited the California state law which limits using drones and other technology to capture certain images of activities occurring on the ground. Its kind of a hybrid trespass/invasion of privacy law.

As I said in a prior post, many people believe they can fly their drone one inch or 400 feet over private property and no one except the FAA can say anything because the FAA controls all airspace from one micron over the ground to the heavens. In other words, there is no such thing as aerial trespass. The drone while in flight is not required to observe or honor any property line and may capture images of anything on the ground either intentionally or incidentally. I just happen to believe that the FAA's right to regulate navigable airspace cannot possibly preempt all state and local laws governing trespass, invasion of privacy, stalking, harassment, nuisance, reckless endangerment, etc.

dirkclod · May 8, 2022

And I personally think you have no Business flying over any LE
impoundments to snoop on what’s going on like the guy that
follows LE to video what they are doing. Can’t remember his name but is a freak. And I am ex LE. Wish he was here doing it cause we
here would break him from doing it. Sometimes it’s best to mind your own business. JMO
To many people with drones or cellphones video just thier side of
what’s happening. Unless you are on the other side you have no
idea what’s really going on.

Skywatcher2001 · May 8, 2022

dirkclod said:
And I personally think you have no Business flying over any LE impoundments to snoop on what’s going on like the guy that follows LE to video what they are doing.

I agree!! There is nothing to be gained by filming inside a police yard. To do so simply because the FAA guidelines may give you clearance to fly over does NOT mean the local jurisdiction will allow it. You are looking for a bad day if you follow and film LE . . . good luck with that. . . especially LAPD.

thispilothere · May 8, 2022

Chip said:
The issue raised by the video is whether its legal in LA CA to fly a drone over a fence and over the LAPD parking lot and record images of officers and the interior of police vehicles? I think the police officer fairly accurately recited the California state law which limits using drones and other technology to capture certain images of activities occurring on the ground. Its kind of a hybrid trespass/invasion of privacy law.

Could you tell me which laws he quoted? I heard vague trespass and privacy references but neither apply in this situation.

dirkclod · May 8, 2022

Look at it this way. You are arrested for say being a pedophile but
are not. Someone here will be after you. Some fool flys over to see
when they bring you out for court and the droner tells when you are being transported out. They take you out when they pull out
transporting you to court. Now even though you are innocent
you wouldn’t have a chance to be proved innocent.
All because you can fly over the impoundment.
Sorry but I think even though you can don’t mean you should.
As far as I’m concerned there are to many out there that just want to push LE’s buttons. And folks think that’s cool. Or some anyway. Sure there’s lots of LE that go over the line but if your in a bind
and need one there will be one there to cover you.

thispilothere · May 8, 2022

dirkclod said:
Sorry but I think even though you can don’t mean you should.

That's fine, but LEOs should stick to enforcing actual laws, not what they think people should be doing.

Chip · May 8, 2022

thispilothere said:
Could you tell me which laws he quoted? I heard vague trespass and privacy references but neither apply in this situation.

The LAPD officer did not quote a specific law. But from what he said, I assume he was referring to CA Code 1708.8 which states in relevant part:

(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.

(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the person attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity, through the use of any device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the device was used.

(d) A person who commits any act described in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is liable for up to three times the amount of any general and special damages that are proximately caused by the violation of this section. This person may also be liable for punitive damages, subject to proof according to Section 3294. If the plaintiff proves that the invasion of privacy was committed for a commercial purpose, the person shall also be subject to disgorgement to the plaintiff of any proceeds or other consideration obtained as a result of the violation of this section. A person who comes within the description of this subdivision is also subject to a civil fine of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).

The LAPD officer in video did arguably conflate the terms privacy and trespass. But the state law at issue is a unique hybrid combination of privacy and trespass law. I think the officer did good job responding to what if questions about google maps, stilts, fractionalized airspace etc. while politely warning please do not come back and make us have to cite you.

There was a similar discussion in @kjonyou thread entitled: Flying drones over private property is illegal in California?

Flying drones over private property is illegal in California?

Can someone clear this up for me? Apparently there was a law passed in CA in 2015 making it illegal to fly a drone over someone else's private property. I know there are privacy laws and I know the FAA took over in 2018 and things changed but I am confused. On other websites I have read that...

mavicpilots.com

dirkclod · May 8, 2022

thispilothere said:
That's fine, but LEOs should stick to enforcing actual laws, not what they think people should be doing.

You missed my point obviously and I’m not going to continue you guys just stay on topic. It has already went off topic and
i did too. Let’s stay on the OP’S original thread.

MavicMiniMaster · May 10, 2022

Johnnydxxx said:
Whilst we all in the U.K. enjoy the freedom flying a drone of less than 250g it appears some operators are doing everything they can to get them banned. I'm talking about the growing number of 'Auditors' on YouTube who fly their drones over police stations and sensitive sites to deliberatly start a confrontation. In some videos on their channels they even position themselves just outside the Flight Restriction Zone of a prison and use the zoom to show the whole installation in detail. When challenged by the police, prison officers or any authority they then quote Civil Aviation Authority legislation just to prove they can do so. We may well be within our rights to do so but I don't think this is responsible behaviour for an operator and I'm sure if this continues it will result in new legislation with much stricter control. Take a look at DJ Audits channel or koleeberks channel on YouTube which are just 2 examples of auditors abusing the feedom the CAA gives us to fly sub 250g drones.

By advising others to go to these YouTube videos, you yourself are complicit in why they do it. Most of these perpetrators are doing it because they are low life born trouble makers.
Now by earning money, created by view counters, they will do it more, creating more publicity for others to join in.
Please everyone. Ignore the desire to be a part of this "trend" . invasion of privacy, whether you are a company or individual is wrong. It's bad enough that new laws being put forward by government will ban speaking the truth, just wait until they ban you from going out side. Don't believe it'll happen ? Just look at what's going on in China. Very very sad.