Harassed in PA

[mavic3usa]

Got it. Intent makes a difference to you. I respect that.

Please respect the fact that it doesn't to me. I don't care how virtuous the intent of someone invading my privacy. They may see something I don't want them to see... like my daughter naked.

When intruding upon space that someone expects is private, you have no idea what you may violate. When this happens, the intent of the violator means very little.

I suspect most people feel this way. Which is reflected in the law.

Drones are a new way to violate people's privacy. The law is catching up. Notably, this consists entirely of closing the "loophole" of a person not being physically present in order to be a violation, rather than the law being clarified to require the physical presence of a person, exempting remote camera operations.

Decide for yourself how that is interpreted vis a vis the general public's view on "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Drones are not a new way to violate people's privacy, that's ridiculous.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Drones are not a new way to violate people's privacy, that's ridiculous.

Okay, apparently you are not going to respect other's POV.

 

[mavic3usa]

Okay, apparently you are not going to respect other's POV.

I feel we have enough laws already and we don't need new laws to cover old problems, respectfully. We don't need "drone laws" to close "loopholes." The current laws already cover everything we need to balance freedom with the right to privacy and also taking into account people "feeling" which is otherwise known as someone's point of view. We've been working on this for over a decade, it's not new. I'm sympathetic to that and mostly understanding but that's about it. I'm taking a page from some of the other causes in this respect so fair warning, it may not always be pretty.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I feel we have enough laws already and we don't need new laws to cover old problems, respectfully.

Respectfully? I think not. My views are no more ridiculous than yours.

Further, you seem to dodge the substance of my post regarding privacy expectations, instead making statements about the quantity of laws.

There's no point in having a discussion with someone who seems unwilling to discuss.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I'm taking a page from some of the other causes in this respect so fair warning, it may not always be pretty.

I've been trying to decipher this, as I really don't want to believe what it seems to be saying: "Warning, I don't care what others think so expect me to be a jerk"?

Okay, warning received. I will avoid discussing things with you here. I don't need the grief.

 

[mavic3usa]

I've been trying to decipher this, as I really don't want to believe what it seems to be saying: "Warning, I don't care what others think so expect me to be a jerk"?

Okay, warning received. I will avoid discussing things with you here. I don't need the grief.

No, I'm just saying in most "causes" like this, you have to be blunt. And sometimes it gets to the point where you have to ignore some things..... (see my next post)

 

[mavic3usa]

Respectfully? I think not. My views are no more ridiculous than yours.

Further, you seem to dodge the substance of my post regarding privacy expectations, instead making statements about the quantity of laws.

There's no point in having a discussion with someone who seems unwilling to discuss.

I am trying to be "respectful" but sometimes the discussion may not seem that way; I'm not intentionally trying to be obtuse. Yes, I'm not trying to address "privacy expectations" because when I start discussing it, my posts gets long and wordy and will likely turn ff the reader...so I delete it. It's one of those things where you say "never mind" and just say something else instead.

For example, when you say something along the lines of "my daughter might be involved..." or "for the children's privacy" then I recognize those buzzwords for what they are and my experience has taught me not to go there because the argument can't be made. Even though it is true, it's never going to sound good if I say "There is no crime if a drone looks into your window and your daughter is not in the room." So yes, I've learned just to not go there. It's just a tactic the other side uses so I've learned to just ignore it, sorry. Privacy discussion don't make for good topics because too many people have their own way to thinking about privacy and I never want to try to convince anyone to see it my way (outside of the law) and as you know, the law is not very heavy in this area. In my opinion, recreational drones don't equate to privacy concerns any more than swinging a golf club on the green or cruising around the neighborhood in your convertible on sunday morning or riding bicycles down the bike path or tossing the football at the city park.

 

[EssenYVR]

...it's never going to sound good if I say "There is no crime if a drone looks into your window and your daughter is not in the room." So yes, I've learned just to not go there. It's just a tactic the other side uses so I've learned to just ignore it, sorry.

I've been watching the back-and-forth between you two, and if I understand the basic point you guys are arguing over (drones require no new laws) I gotta say he's making more sense to me than you are.

If there's a law that says you may not invade privacy and the wording of the law (or the court's interpretation of it) is that you must be physically present in order to do so, then IMHO drones have changed the calculus and the law requires an update.

So what's the point that I'm missing? Is it that privacy laws are not interpreted that way?

 

[mavic3usa]

I've been watching the back-and-forth between you two, and if I understand the basic point you guys are arguing over (drones require no new laws) I gotta say he's making more sense to me than you are.

If there's a law that says you may not invade privacy and the wording of the law (or the court's interpretation of it) is that you must be physically present in order to do so, then IMHO drones have changed the calculus and the law requires an update.

So what's the point that I'm missing? Is it that privacy laws are not interpreted that way?

If drones were not the first and only mechanism that were capable of invading someone's privacy then we might need a law for it. But drones are not. You can invade someone's privacy without by physically present with a telescope. And they didn't have to pass a telescope law for that.

At 2am, if you set up a telescope on the corner of 5th and main and you started to look thru the hundreds of bedroom windows facing down to 5th street trying to get a peek into a window that didn't close their blinds, trying to see someone in a state of undress for your gratification, then you are probably committing a crime. I honestly feel like if you do the same things with a drone, then you might also be committing the same crime. Perhaps it is just as easy to add drone to the same list that has telescope and binoculars but you certainly don't need a new drone law.

Because if you create a new drone law, it won't be the same. The drone law will put you in jail even if they are business offices instead of apartment buildings (residents). The drone law will put you in jail even if you're just poking around seeing what you can find interesting (instead of peeking). The drone law will put you in jail even if your drone hovers for 5 seconds. My complaint is if it's not a crime to use a telescope on an office building or binocular gazing around the city looking for interesting stuff or watch with a telescope from a semi-permanent perch, then why would it be a crime with a drone?

Just add (or imply) the drone to the same list (or activities) we already have so the drone can also benefit from the circumstances afforded to not being physically present (because they do exist)...or not. Creating the new drone law will probably be unjust and unfair and certainly go overboard and in my opinion, would cover more than just "invasion of privacy." Because with a drone, there's a "new" sense of invasion of privacy. Even a poster pointed it out. Today you have to look into a dressing room with someone in it. Nobody in it, no crime. Mount a camera in it waiting for a target, that's a crime. Flying a drone by and look into the dressing room with nobody in it, is that a crime or not? My assertion is because the drone has a crime, most people (who hate drones) would call that a crime. Personally, I don't think so. *Just to be clear, if it is not a crime to walk by a dressing room and look inside with no one there then it shouldn't be a crime to fly by a dressing room and look inside with no one there. But it would be a crime to place a hidden camera (or maybe even non-hidden) outside (so in my mind drone not the same as camera) that's my thinking.

Example: If I'm passing between 2 apartment buildings and I drop my controller and the drone hovers until I can recover the controller and while the drone is hovering, it's outside your window, will the law try to throw me in jail for that? No drone law is going to have that exception. "Privacy" will have a new meaning when it comes to drones. I would argue that you actually have less "privacy" now that there are drones and personally, I'm not ready to deal with those concerns by adding laws and taking away freedom. To me, that's not the right balance.

Let's try to use the existing laws to cover drones. Maybe it needs a few tweaks to clarify. But we don't need a new set of drone laws (that will keep increasing over time) designed to further infringe on recreational drone flights and continue to make it so everyone is more afraid to fly.

 

[EssenYVR]

If drones were not the first and only mechanism that were capable of invading someone's privacy then we might need a law for it. But drones are not. You can invade someone's privacy without by physically present with a telescope. And they didn't have to pass a telescope law for that.

Fair point.

I hear what you're saying, but it will take time to know whether existing laws will prove adequate or not. I guess the difference of opinion stems from a difference in propensity to "err on the side of caution" vs. "wait and see".

 

[Droning on and on...]

Wow. Something that seems so simple to me has become impossible to follow here.

Looking through someone's window with your drone should constitute a violation of privacy rights subject to punishment under the law, exactly the same as if your eyeballs were there looking through that window.

If the law has a loophole that exempts drones implicitly because it requires a human physical presence (i.e. "peeping tom" statutes), then lawmakers need to act and close this loophole.

I honestly don't know if @mavic3usa agrees or disagrees with this. I contend that this is the way virtually everyone in the public with no interest in drones feels, and I daresay a majority of drone pilots too. So expect the law to eventually reflect that, if it doesn't already.

A separate issue from privacy rights is property rights. Apparently I have a more strict interpretation of those rights than some others here.

 

[Droning on and on...]

In California using a telescope to look through the windows of a private home is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $1,000 fine and 6 months in jail, PC 647(J).

 

[mavic3usa]

In California using a telescope to look through the windows of a private home is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to $1,000 fine and 6 months in jail, PC 647(J).

Totally agree and you'll see it already includes drones. No need to have a "drone law" and definitely I don't see a need to "exempt" drones from this statute. There are no loopholes for drone flyers to exploit the intent of the law.

(j) (1) A person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, mobile phone, electronic device, or unmanned aircraft system, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision does not apply to those areas of a private business used to count currency or other negotiable instruments.

(2) A person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another identifiable person under or through the clothing being worn by that other person, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person and invade the privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. For the purposes of this paragraph, “identifiable” means capable of identification, or capable of being recognized, meaning that someone, including the victim, could identify or recognize the victim. It does not require the victim’s identity to actually be established.

(3) (A) A person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person. For the purposes of this paragraph, “identifiable” means capable of identification, or capable of being recognized, meaning that someone, including the victim, could identify or recognize the victim. It does not require the victim’s identity to actually be established.

(B) Neither of the following is a defense to the crime specified in this paragraph:

(i) The defendant was a cohabitant, landlord, tenant, cotenant, employer, employee, or business partner or associate of the victim, or an agent of any of these.

(ii) The victim was not in a state of full or partial undress.

(4) (A) A person who intentionally distributes or causes to be distributed the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, or an image of the person depicted engaged in an act of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, sexual penetration, or an image of masturbation by the person depicted or in which the person depicted participates, under circumstances in which the persons agree or understand that the image shall remain private, the person distributing the image knows or should know that distribution of the image will cause serious emotional distress, and the person depicted suffers that distress.

(B) (i) A person intentionally distributes an image described in subparagraph (A) when that person personally distributes the image.

(ii) A person intentionally causes an image described in subparagraph (A) to be distributed when that person arranges, specifically requests, or intentionally causes another person to distribute the image.

(C) As used in this paragraph, the following terms have the following meanings:

(i) “Distribute” includes exhibiting in public or giving possession.

(ii) “Identifiable” has the same meaning as in paragraphs (2) and (3).

(iii) “Intimate body part” means any portion of the genitals, the **** and, in the case of a female, also includes any portion of the breasts below the top of the areola, that is either uncovered or clearly visible through clothing.

(D) It shall not be a violation of this paragraph to distribute an image described in subparagraph (A) if any of the following applies:

(i) The distribution is made in the course of reporting an unlawful activity.

(ii) The distribution is made in compliance with a subpoena or other court order for use in a legal proceeding.

(iii) The distribution is made in the course of a lawful public proceeding.

(iv) The distribution is related to a matter of public concern or public interest. Distribution is not a matter of public concern or public interest solely because the depicted individual is a public figure.

(5) This subdivision does not preclude punishment under any section of law providing for greater punishment.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Totally agree and you'll see it already includes drones. No need to have a "drone law" and definitely I don't see a need to "exempt" drones from this statute. There are no loopholes for drone flyers to exploit the intent of the law.

I agree 100%. Drones are already covered, so no need for lawmakers to act.

In California.

Notably, 647(J) was updated only recently, effective 2020 to include drones.

 

[finity]

with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside.

the law there already seems to cover "intent" and I think intent matters.

Otherwise we need to ban any camera (and even windows because voyeurism isn't just with a camera) on every device or apparatus that could possibly ever even have the possibility of sweeping by a window that may or may not contain someone who is or is not in any state of undress. ever.

news helicopters, sight seeing operations, private pilots, passenger jets all have the possibility to accidentally visually sweep a window with someone inside with a recording device or their eyes. And so could the above mentioned binoculars or a hand-held camera/video recorder just in it's normal operation with literally zero intent to observe the person within.

and the amount of what can be sen thru windows is even variable as related to the amount of light inside vs and/or outside at the time of the "sweep". at one time of day a person outside could see everything inside if they just happen to glance by a window but at other times the same person from the same vantage point wouldn't be able to see anything at all inside even if they stood there and stared and tried to see inside.

intent has to matter.

just mho.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Of course intent matters. More critical, how is intent determined for the purposes of these laws?

It can't be solely, "take my word for it". Much can be inferred by what the accused is doing.

A drone passing over your backyard at 75 feet signals its likely the pilot was just going somewhere. We can believe the pilot when he says this.

A drone hovering 1 foot away from a window of a private home with camera pointed inside makes innocent claims of intent highly suspect, and unlikely to be be believed by the property owner, District Attorney, or ultimately a jury if it comes to that.

 

[mavic3usa]

Of course intent matters. More critical, how is intent determined for the purposes of these laws?

It can't be solely, "take my word for it". Much can be inferred by what the accused is doing.

A drone passing over your backyard at 75 feet signals its likely the pilot was just going somewhere. We can believe the pilot when he says this.

A drone hovering 1 foot away from a window of a private home with camera pointed inside makes innocent claims of intent highly suspect, and unlikely to be be believed by the property owner, District Attorney, or ultimately a jury if it comes to that.

What happens if you fly "a drone passing over your backyard at 75 feet signals its likely the pilot was just going somewhere. We can believe the pilot when he says this" but the police officer is not quite buying it and asks you to show your flight log files and you refuse?

If there is a "drone" law then your refusal will probably get this situation thrown into the legal system. If the drone is like any other visual equipment then the outcome is likely to be different....for the same exact situation. Not cool!

Did we already talk about hovering? Irrespective of where the camera is pointing, a drone hovers....a lot. When it loses signal, when you let go of the sticks, when RTH is triggered, when it hit a geofence, when it encounters an obstacle it cannot avoid....hovering is not a crime! It's not a signal that crime is afoot or some nefarious activity is happening which is why I am against drone laws which do not take any of this into account. Knowing what you know about drones, how can you say this:

A drone hovering 1 foot away from a window of a private home with camera pointed inside makes innocent claims of intent highly suspect

 

[finity]

how can you say this:

I agree with all of what you said but I can also understand the point that droning...was making.

of course in that situation it would be against common sense to not believe there was intent.

it's the other cases towards the edges that makes for unjustified accusations of intent. And I agree with you there. Black and white is easy. it's the gray areas that are the problem legally.

 

[Droning on and on...]

What happens if you fly "a drone passing over your backyard at 75 feet signals its likely the pilot was just going somewhere. We can believe the pilot when he says this" but the police officer is not quite buying it and asks you to show your flight log files and you refuse?

We covered this situation already.

 

[Droning on and on...]

it's the other cases towards the edges that makes for unjustified accusations of intent. And I agree with you there. Black and white is easy. it's the gray areas that are the problem legally.

Not so fast there

Who decides, in a society ruled by law, what is "unjustified" in those cases toward the edge?

With all sorts of people with different values, priorities, and opinions, there is very little black and white, and mostly gray.

So, when a homeowner feels @mavic3usa was invading their privacy under CA law, and he doesn't, how is this dispute resolved?

It must be, in some way that results in peaceful resolution. Otherwise, things often escalate, and sometimes people get hurt.

That's the entire point of "rule of law". All parties in a dispute almost never all agree on the outcome, but we all agree on the process to arrive at a resolution and to live with it, which is what makes a civil society.