What do you all think of the new PA Legeslation, Act 78? By my reading, it criminalizes any drone activity where any back yard is visible. I am surprised that there hasn’t been an outcry over this new law. I especially thought that they news industry and real estate industry have not spoken up, neither have been exempted. You can find the law here: 2018 Act 78.
Pennsylvania Act 78
- Thread starter Minengnr
- Start date
I have been told that the link does not work. So, here are excerpts from Act 78. The law is touted as protecting privacy in yards. The devil is in the definitions:
3505. Unlawful use of unmanned aircraft.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the offense of unlawful use of unmanned aircraft if the person uses an unmanned aircraft intentionally or knowingly to:
(1) Conduct surveillance of another person in a private place.
(2) Operate in a manner which places another person in reasonable fear of bodily injury.
f) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Bodily injury." As defined in section 2301 (relating to definitions).
"Law enforcement officer." An officer of the United States, of another state or subdivision thereof, or of the Commonwealth or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this title or an equivalent crime in another jurisdiction and an attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of the offense.
"Private place." A place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
"Surveillance." Using or causing to be used an unmanned aircraft to observe, record or invade the privacy of another.
"Unmanned aircraft." An aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
3505. Unlawful use of unmanned aircraft.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the offense of unlawful use of unmanned aircraft if the person uses an unmanned aircraft intentionally or knowingly to:
(1) Conduct surveillance of another person in a private place.
(2) Operate in a manner which places another person in reasonable fear of bodily injury.
f) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Bodily injury." As defined in section 2301 (relating to definitions).
"Law enforcement officer." An officer of the United States, of another state or subdivision thereof, or of the Commonwealth or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this title or an equivalent crime in another jurisdiction and an attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of the offense.
"Private place." A place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
"Surveillance." Using or causing to be used an unmanned aircraft to observe, record or invade the privacy of another.
"Unmanned aircraft." An aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
53-63-6f-74-74
Well-Known Member
I think you're misinterpreting it. It seems to deal with intentional surveillance of individuals in private locations (hovering over a fenced in swimming pool in your neigbor's yard would be an example), or operating in a reckless manner that endangers other peoples safety. I'd be willing to bet there are already laws regarding surveillance of individuals in private, and willful endangerment, so I'm sure this law is not even necessary, but it makes some people feel good when they do stuff like this.
Agree - surveillance does not mean simply taking a photograph which happens to contain a bit of someone else’s land.
Surveillance by definition means at least some prolonged monitoring if something or someone.
My concern is that surveillance, as defined in the statute, is very broad. Anyone who does not Iike drones could easily make that claim.
Any can make any claim. Proving it is quite another matter and any such claim would have to involve at least some repetition of their land being overflown and photographed otherwise it would fail.
ColinF
Well-Known Member
The intent looks to be fairly reasonable, the problem I see is that overzealous, or uninformed law enforcement, combined with a person that has no understanding of drones, could make claims that while likely to be defeated in Court, would be an expensive and stressful mess to clean up in Court. Thanks for letting us know about this. I will be reaching out to my local state rep to discuss with him. I think it needs to be tightened.
ColinF
Well-Known Member
A potential upside is that it prohibits local laws.... That could be good, with some localities prohibiting drones in parks and beaches etc.
I am with you. The problem comes from the sector that just does not like drones filing complaints at no expense tho them. There is an exemption for people flying under FAA rules. Seems vague to me, and an opportunity to find some issue of technical noncompliance. How can you do real estate shots and not have a neighbors yard at least partially visible? Even shots of say a town at sunset, without someone’s yard being visible. It is the definitions that seem overly broad.
JSKCKNIT
Well-Known Member
They should add intentionally and knowingly under the definitions section so that incidental recordings and flights aren't included.
Wow, so now we can sue Google Earth? I bet hey have infinitely more images of people's private property, than all drone pilots combined.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
-
Mini 3 Historic Sunnyside Rail Bridge, Tenterfield NSW- Started by Geofff
- Replies: 0
-
-
Forum statistics
