Pervert and stalking fears from drones in Australia.

[Dronut]

Lawyers say 'a lack of clarity' in drone laws is a threat to privacy

When a distressed Gold Coast holiday maker tried to take legal action after finding a "drone peeping Tom" spying on her in the shower, her lawyer advised there was little she could do.

www.abc.net.au

 

[AnzacJack]

With statements like this
“She said with many small drones able to operate up to 10 kilometres away from an operator, it could often be hard to figure out who was "hovering stalking" there is always going to be issues.
I cant think of any small drones that can operate at this distance in Australia.
While these anti drone advocates continue to exaggerate capabilities with obvious lack of knowledge, its always going to be hard to develop reasonable rules and regulations.
I agree that the speed of tech advancements make it hard to maintain rules and regs, the gap between advocates for and against make it even harder

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

What a beat up, we know it, CASA knows it, trouble is the ignorant reporting = the public that read this will probably take any anti drone fears to a new level whenever they see one operating.

"She went downstairs to speak to the management of the holiday rental and was told the building was being surveilled by drone for maintenance reasons."

Well, they SHOULD have advised people staying there for sure.
The commercial drone operator should have insisted on it.

Obviously the woman concerned, the building management, the ABC reporter / editing team, didn't know that with the exposure (no pun intended) settings as they would have been for outside filming, there's no way anything of vision inside would be possible, even if there was no glass reflections in the picture (again no pun intended).

Just a shabby story all round.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Several thoughts occur to me.
The following assumes the drone is a DJI drone, if the matter had been reported to the police I think there are several things that could have, if push came to shove, been done.
1) a surveyor would have probably have recorded video and if 'innocent' the video would have shown no undue delay at the woman's window. Though I wonder if a momentary delay due to surprise would constitute peeping?
2) if there was no video, for what ever reason, then the flight logs would have shown a flight pattern for the flight and when video was being recorded or photos taken.
3) if the screen device logs were, for whatever reason, unavailable then there is the drone's DAT and I would have thought DJI might co-operate with an official request to decrypt them if necessary.

I.e. a DJI drone might hoist a peeper by his own ...........

 

[eva2000]

While these anti drone advocates continue to exaggerate capabilities with obvious lack of knowledge, its always going to be hard to develop reasonable rules and regulations.
I agree that the speed of tech advancements make it hard to maintain rules and regs, the gap between advocates for and against make it even harder

Maybe require all involved lawmakers to have mandatory drone flying/using experience first

Not sure but in Australia is there any legal standing for police/authorities to force someone to hand over their drone footage and logs?

Or maybe in future like Apple air tags, drones will have the ability to ping/alert mobile users if there's a drone within 30 metres of them?

 

[Chip]

Lawyers say 'a lack of clarity' in drone laws is a threat to privacy

When a distressed Gold Coast holiday maker tried to take legal action after finding a "drone peeping Tom" spying on her in the shower, her lawyer advised there was little she could do.

www.abc.net.au

Mr Potts said the building's managers just "shrugged their shoulders" and nothing was done.

If you believed that someone with a drone had spied on you while taking a shower, would you expect the property owner who hired the drone pilot to address your concerns or would you expect the state or federal government to do so with special legislation?

"Unfortunately we could have made a complaint to the police about stalking but it has to be actually an intentional act and in this case that was a grey area."

NEWSFLASH: Yes, that is the problem with accusing someone of a crime in some countries with a constitutionally based criminal justice system. You need proof.

"So in these types of cases where there is a lack of clarity, a lack of good law certainly, a lack of training, no action could be taken.

Yes. In order to charge or prosecute someone for a crime, you generally need proof.

"And even though she had suspicion, this operator was acting in an untoward and salacious manner, he had the perfect cover to say no, he was doing another job, it was something that was inadvertent."

Yes. Maybe we should accuse and prosecute people based on suspicion. Or simply eliminate an accused's right to proffer a defense or any alternate explanation of the facts. Its much better better to convict 10 innocent people than to let 1 guilty person go free. Especially when it comes to drone flying.

She said the law had not kept up with the fast-paced changes in drone technology and warned Queensland lagged behind others states to protect people's privacy.

Here in US we have laws governing trespass, stalking, nuisance, invasion of privacy, reckless endangerment etc. all of which can be used to limit or punish drone pilots who are misusing their drones. Many states in US now have drone specific surveillance laws as well. Are there no such laws in AUS?

"The use of privately owned drones is one of the black holes of legislation."

Black hole? OMG. Give me a break.

"Quite apart from standardised safety, privacy and data protection laws, we need owner registration, third-party insurance for drone operators and/or owners, and the legal requirement to keep an activity log."

Are commercial operators in AUS not required to keep flight logs?

"When one looks at the existing definition of unlawful stalking in Queensland, what the first element of that offence is, that the person who is doing the unlawful stalking has to [take action] that intentionally is directed at a person,"

Yes, I would imagine that would be a specific element of any stalking crime. Taking intentionally directed action. That is what stalking is.

"So you can imagine if I am flying a device that has a very broad scope and it might be quite difficult for a jury to believe that the actual pictures taken were intentionally directed at a person.

Yes, intentional targeting is a required element of stalking. That is why its called stalking.

"And in this case, it might be the person they are trying to harass."

Right so lets change the law to read that someone shall be guilty of a crime if the judge or jury concludes from the evidence that he might possibly have done it. This proof beyond reasonable doubt standard is outdated and so 1980s.

"Excuses are easy — 'Oh that I was just looking at the beach, I was just looking at the road, I was just looking at the neighbourhood.'

Right. Best solution is to pass a new law that easily fits on a bumper sticker:

FLY A DRONE GO TO JAIL.

 

[Gagey52]

Interesting article, not the first time I’ve heard of it happening. If the victim knew who owned the drone the lawyer should have advised her to make a complaint to CASA. There is a couple of breaches there and in conjunction with police action could be taken. My thoughts.
Regards

 

[spsphotos]

Take away here is don't walk around naked in front of an open window. Duh.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Think about it.
A drone orbiting or traversing up / down or strafing left or right.
A person in the shower, presumably at least . . . what, a couple of metres inside the room.
The drone camera is set to outside light, probably at most partly cloudy, the white balance set for this.
Unless the bathroom was lit like the sun, it’d appear to be almost dark.

And besides, at a reasonable distance you wouldn’t even see that much detail even if you wanted to, and tried.
Heck flying a couple of hundred feet over rocky beaches, I sometimes miss dog walkers that happen along (iPad mini 4), I see them in editing on the desktop monitor.

I’m still kind of perplexed why a building manager would not inform the residents the drone inspection was happening, or the drone pilot, presumably a RePL licensed pro, didn’t include this as a job condition (maybe they did and it was not acted on).

 

[Zbip57]

Pics, or it never happened.

 

[spsphotos]

Think about it.
A drone orbiting or traversing up / down or strafing left or right.
A person in the shower, presumably at least . . . what, a couple of metres inside the room.
The drone camera is set to outside light, probably at most partly cloudy, the white balance set for this.
Unless the bathroom was lit like the sun, it’d appear to be almost dark.

And besides, at a reasonable distance you wouldn’t even see that much detail even if you wanted to, and tried.
Heck flying a couple of hundred feet over rocky beaches, I sometimes miss dog walkers that happen along (iPad mini 4), I see them in editing on the desktop monitor.

I’m still kind of perplexed why a building manager would not inform the residents the drone inspection was happening, or the drone pilot, presumably a RePL licensed pro, didn’t include this as a job condition (maybe they did and it was not acted on).

Tried to tell the wife this many times...if it's brighter OUTSIDE then inside people cannot see into your house unless they come up to the window or you are standing very close to the window. Been a photographer for over 20 years...basic lighting fact but she still does not believe me even when I proved it with photos. Some people just don't get it.

 

[Itzmyobsession]

Tried to tell the wife this many times...if it's brighter OUTSIDE then inside people cannot see into your house unless they come up to the window or you are standing very close to the window. Been a photographer for over 20 years...basic lighting fact but she still does not believe me even when I proved it with photos. Some people just don't get it.

Nailed it ...flew my mini 2 up to the living room window, while she sat on the couch facing the window, in broad daylite, took a couple of picks and guess what, all I saw was a reflection of my drone..nothing inside

 

[Reginald E Johnson]

What a beat up, we know it, CASA knows it, trouble is the ignorant reporting = the public that read this will probably take any anti drone fears to a new level whenever they see one operating.

"She went downstairs to speak to the management of the holiday rental and was told the building was being surveilled by drone for maintenance reasons."

Well, they SHOULD have advised people staying there for sure.
The commercial drone operator should have insisted on it.

Obviously the woman concerned, the building management, the ABC reporter / editing team, didn't know that with the exposure (no pun intended) settings as they would have been for outside filming, there's no way anything of vision inside would be possible, even if there was no glass reflections in the picture (again no pun intended).

Just a shabby story all round.

I tell People that all the time! There are a very few Consumer Drones out here that can spy on you and all of them sound like Flying Lawnmowers! Even with the Zoom capabilities of mine, I still would have to get close to see anything substantial?

 

[Geofff]

Main stream media in Australia is all about creating and fanning the flames of people's fears. This story is no different. Yes, a small number of drone users do the wrong thing and need to be "educated" but stories like this reflect badly on all responsible users and I am concerned that we are likely to see tighter local agency controls in addition to CASA that will further restrict where we can fly.
People seem not to be able to differentiate what they see in the movies and the capabilities of these small consumer drones.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Main stream media in Australia is all about creating and fanning the flames of people's fears. This story is no different. Yes, a small number of drone users do the wrong thing and need to be "educated" but stories like this reflect badly on all responsible users and I am concerned that we are likely to see tighter local agency controls in addition to CASA that will further restrict where we can fly.
People seem not to be able to differentiate what they see in the movies and the capabilities of these small consumer drones.

True Geofff, it seems so bad now with media, even our ABC has lowered its standards of just reporting the news, and keep personal bias / political debate out of it.

You'd think there'd be someone in the ABC editorial section that would look at this as think "hang on, lets get another view on this from a professional in the drone game".
Even CASA has a reason to beef up stories, makes / keeps them relevant.

But an industry expert, heck even many hobbyists, could easily put a lot of this story to bed quite simply.

All about the adverti$ing income now, especially as most news is online.
ABC it's probably more to do with the people they employ

There are certainly totally ignorant or blatant rule breakers out there.
I once saw a video of a bloke flying his Spark down the Gold Coast (Spark forum), busy as with people / traffic, right on the esplanade and flying over people, cars, down the street, landing right among the crowd.

Talking about flying right among the high rise apartments too, with all their wifi.

Made a comment, was he aware of CASA rules ??
Got the usual "but nothing happened".

Yes, I think it'll be more council type restrictions that impact all drone users, rec and commercial.
Rec will be outright banned from the usual take off / landing, operating from land under their care.
Just another step for commercial ops to go through if needing to fly from such a place.

Most urban councils already have these bans, it'll just be made more visible in theri policies, more enforced, and signs everywhere.

 

[macdog]

Our local council here in regional Victoria tried to pass a law that no drone, even a toy, could be flown without paying the council a fee. That was shot down, but this is the type of unwarranted action governments will try and get away with.

 

[lookout]

You could either produce drone videos of yourself in the nude at various footages away. Play them back for anybody that is inquiring. Ok, here I am at 100 yards and there I am at 50 yards. See? We can't see everything.

Or just say that your cameras can see to infinity and beyond.

 

[lookout]

Tried to tell the wife this many times...if it's brighter OUTSIDE then inside people cannot see into your house unless they come up to the window or you are standing very close to the window. Been a photographer for over 20 years...basic lighting fact but she still does not believe me even when I proved it with photos. Some people just don't get it.

That would be too logical. We're trying to make a political issue out of a common ordinary camera here.

The captain has turned on the no thinking light.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The captain has turned on the no thinking light.

OMG ! I though for a second there you wrote The captain has turned on the no drinking light !!
Phew.

 

[Prt60]

Mr Potts said the building's managers just "shrugged their shoulders" and nothing was done.

If you believed that someone with a drone had spied on you while taking a shower, would you expect the property owner who hired the drone pilot to address your concerns or would you expect the state or federal government to do so with special legislation?

"Unfortunately we could have made a complaint to the police about stalking but it has to be actually an intentional act and in this case that was a grey area."

NEWSFLASH: Yes, that is the problem with accusing someone of a crime in some countries with a constitutionally based criminal justice system. You need proof.

"So in these types of cases where there is a lack of clarity, a lack of good law certainly, a lack of training, no action could be taken.

Yes. In order to charge or prosecute someone for a crime, you generally need proof.

"And even though she had suspicion, this operator was acting in an untoward and salacious manner, he had the perfect cover to say no, he was doing another job, it was something that was inadvertent."

Yes. Maybe we should accuse and prosecute people based on suspicion. Or simply eliminate an accused's right to proffer a defense or any alternate explanation of the facts. Its much better better to convict 10 innocent people than to let 1 guilty person go free. Especially when it comes to drone flying.

She said the law had not kept up with the fast-paced changes in drone technology and warned Queensland lagged behind others states to protect people's privacy.

Here in US we have laws governing trespass, stalking, nuisance, invasion of privacy, reckless endangerment etc. all of which can be used to limit or punish drone pilots who are misusing their drones. Many states in US now have drone specific surveillance laws as well. Are there no such laws in AUS?

"The use of privately owned drones is one of the black holes of legislation."

Black hole? OMG. Give me a break.

"Quite apart from standardised safety, privacy and data protection laws, we need owner registration, third-party insurance for drone operators and/or owners, and the legal requirement to keep an activity log."

Are commercial operators in AUS not required to keep flight logs?

"When one looks at the existing definition of unlawful stalking in Queensland, what the first element of that offence is, that the person who is doing the unlawful stalking has to [take action] that intentionally is directed at a person,"

Yes, I would imagine that would be a specific element of any stalking crime. Taking intentionally directed action. That is what stalking is.

"So you can imagine if I am flying a device that has a very broad scope and it might be quite difficult for a jury to believe that the actual pictures taken were intentionally directed at a person.

Yes, intentional targeting is a required element of stalking. That is why its called stalking.

"And in this case, it might be the person they are trying to harass."

Right so lets change the law to read that someone shall be guilty of a crime if the judge or jury concludes from the evidence that he might possibly have done it. This proof beyond reasonable doubt standard is outdated and so 1980s.

"Excuses are easy — 'Oh that I was just looking at the beach, I was just looking at the road, I was just looking at the neighbourhood.'

Right. Best solution is to pass a new law that easily fits on a bumper sticker:

FLY A DRONE GO TO JAIL.

Love this post thank you. It still perplexes me that in most situations people who complain about drones or drone operators “invading their privacy” have just spent everyday walking streets or driving their cars in their own suburbs, where majority of shops and streets have cameras ‘spying‘ on them without their consent or in some cases their knowledge. Have they been into a Kmart store. Have they bought groceries at a supermarket. Have they been to Bunnings where every move you make from the car park to entering their toilets is filmed. And don’t get me started in private cars with cameras inside that know when your phone rings. (yes that happens now) It’s just mind boggling to me that Australia is a so called free country and not withstanding the obvious stupidity of the few, it seems like drones and their pilots are just another target for revenue raising and over governing of simple enjoyment. Do not live in Victoria if you want freedom as our government want and give themselves the power and total control over every movement we make. We struggle to go somewhere without some form of policing, much less take photos of the scenery of land owned by the people. I guess some self centred people must think their own person is so special others would waste their precious battery time looking at them rather than the natural beauty of our great country. I get the feeling Australia will eventually just ban all private drones full stop. It’s the story of life, someone invents something we can have fun with and a government do gooder wants to invent a rule to restrict or control that enjoyment.
As some say, the world has seriously gone mad. Having said all that I’m off to fly my drone to film the grass in my own backyard. Hopefully the worms won’t complain.