Proposed CA Drone Law "Shot Down"
JerBrown no signie the "trespassing below 350 feet" bill, so keep on peepin', Tom.
http://www.roboticstrends.com/article/proposed_calif._drone_law_shot_down
http://www.roboticstrends.com/article/proposed_calif._drone_law_shot_down
Comments
Does this remind anyone of another "equipment vs. miscreant user" issue in this country? PLEASE, do not let this segue into a forum on the 2nd Amendment, or I guarantee this thread will be shut down! (For the record, I'm definitely not an apologist for the NRA.) The parallels, however, are worth debating and are topical in a forum whose host sells quadcopters. The debate should center on this: when does the use of certain equipment become so common and egregious that only way to stem its misuse is to place restrictions upon the equipment itself? Or, more interestingly, how do you craft enforceable legislation that finely and accurately parses use from misuse, without laying blame at the foot of equipment or its manufacturers?
We can discuss this rationally without it becoming political, okay?
Thanks,
-Phil
you might not sit in it, but it better be attached to an insurance form if you want to deliver your package over my house.
And, I suppose I will just have to trust them to keep the camera turned off when they fly over.
edit: changed phrasing from "Control over it", to "controlled it"
Sure there is. There are many of them. I built one years ago. Sure I could take command of it when I needed to but if I were to have suddenly dropped dead, it would have kept flying until the batteries ran out. Then there are all the free flight models that people have been building for over a century. You wind them up, then they fly, completely on their own. What about high altitude balloons? No control there either, you just wait for the balloon to pop, then it free falls. Amateur rocketry too. They aren't even allowed to have control. Once they lift off, they are on their own.
I understand you did not ride in the apparatus, but if it went down in a bad spot, so would you...
I did edit my first post, sorry bout that. just wanted to be more clear.
Didn't you make it political with your "(For the record, I'm definitely not an apologist for the NRA.)" comment?
I can't help but get a little ruffled when someone makes a statement that may well indicate what side of the fence they're on and then asks others to not get political.
Other than the jab at the NRA I agree with what you say.
C.W.
I am not an apologist for the NRA either. Can you tell what my views on gun control are from that statement? I seriously doubt it, but please don't try - unless it is privately.
* What does case law say about someone remote-controlling a ground vehicle on private property without permission?
* If an item (of any type) is placed on private property without permission, what does case law say about the ownership rights for that item?
* What is the altitude at which the FAA requires a licensed pilot, announced flight plans, etc? What happens if a pilot flies their vehicle below that altitude? Or without providing a flight plan?
* Is the airspace above us public space or private space?
* Could such laws (as mentioned by the OP) be used against innocent "aerial vehicles" such as paper airplanes, Frisbees, or kites? What if those "innocent" vehicles has cameras or similar devices attached?
* What is our primary concern when restricting UAVs? Privacy? Safety?
I don't know about case law but in my book it's "Finders, keepers / Losers, weepers".
-Phil
BTW, yes, my statement about the NRA may have skirted the political a little too closely, although I was trying hard to avoid that. What I should have said was, "Please do not assume from my statements that I'm either an apologist or antagonist for the NRA," thus keeping it completely neutral.
Isn't this already the issue with paparazzi taking photos with zoom lenses? In those cases, I think the laws address intent. Since you can't reasonably stop a determined person from taking a picture, the laws dictate how the picture can/cannot be used.
-Phil
It would seem it will have to be handled that way, as increasing camera capability would cause ever increasing minimum altitudes.
I suppose we could get crazy and limit camera capability that is allowed to be flown.
Keeping 'drones' below 500ft AGL is preferable to keep them below normal VFR traffic.
C.W.
Also a kudos to Google and Amazon for destroying people's backyard privacy, just so they can make a buck.
A helicopter can operate lower, but aircraft occupants are not exempt from privacy laws.
The safety issue is of primary importance in in my opinion. An out of control plane is an unguided missile, and it's propeller and those of copters make great slicing and dicing machine. Flying by at a reasonable altitude and speed is one thing, hovering over or flying around or above me should be a crime regardless of the intent or location.
Taking pictures of me, my family, or my guests while on my own property is an invasion of privacy and should also be a crime. Not easy to prove unless the pictures are distributed or published, and if published without the subjects permission the publisher should also be prosecuted.
No one should have to put up with harassment from UAV's on private property. Everyone, including athletes, actors, artists, and even politicians should be able to enjoy their homes and properties in peace.
There are already laws on the books in most jurisdicions to deal with this. All that really needs to be done is to set a minimum altitude and transit speed.
But what about Google Earth? The resolution is now fine enough to show individual people -- and pretty much whether they're clothed or not. Does anyone have a reasonable expectation of privacy from satellite photos if they happen to be sunbathing on an otherwise secluded deck when the satellite passes over?
So how do you define "reasonable?" Must seclusion be effective for the expectation of privacy to be reasonable?
What has changed with airborne ROVs is that the means of seclusion that were largely effective at ground level no longer are. So does that also modify one's reasonable expectation of privacy?
-Phil
Now I think you are nitpicking and bringing up edge cases. Very few if any laws cover every possible case. If you have no fence or a two foot high fence there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. OTOH if you have a seven foot high privacy fence or live in the center of a hundred acre lot then there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In that case using a UAV to peep at or take pictures or video is an invasion of privacy. It's no different than some pervert creeping around and peeking in windows, and should be treated as such.
As for Google Earth snapping someone sunbathing in the nude that's a different thing altogether. First, the resolution is so poor identifying an individual from a blob of a few pixels is next to impossible, and second, the obvious intent of the pictures is for mapping.
Just to be clear, Here in America, If you are standing on public property you have a right to record video in any direction.
That includes pointing the lens directly at your window and or property.
It also quotes Justice Alito in United States v. Jones, who writes:
In other words, pertaining to this discussion, drones are a technological innovation that may well change what the public perceives as "reasonable" when it comes to their privacy. One may eventually look skyward and say, "Oh yeah, I am pretty exposed after all. 'Time to build a gazebo!"
-Phil
One of the first things people look at after they download Google Earth is their own neighborhood. If someone at neighbor Smith's address is seen sunbathing in the nude, and the photo was taken on a Tuesday at 11 a.m. when Mr. Smith is at work and the kids are at school, chances are pretty good that the unclothed subject is Mrs. Smith. So, you see, it's not necessary to recognize a face from the picture to guess with good probability who it is. And the mere fact that Mrs. Smith, visible only as a flesh-colored four-limbed blob (of more than a "few pixels," BTW), sunbathed in the nude on that day may not be something she'd be keen to divulge in such a public manner.
Also, the pictures' "obvious intent" has little to do with their ultimate -- even legitimate -- uses, which go far beyond mapping. The needs of mapping could be satisfied with the resolution available a decade ago. The current resolution reaches far beyond that.
-Phil
http://www.roboticstrends.com/article/first_uk_drone_conviction_ends_with_fine
Mapping is one thing. But Street view is another. And the resolution is going up. Google & Co do not just use satellite pictures. They also collect images with low flying airplanes and even cars, mapping open WIFY's also.
I am not a member of the NRA and try to keep this as un-political as I can, due to obey them forum rules. But I live in some rural area and have to fight intruders like - hmm - Rattle Snakes, sometimes Coyotes, even Bears. Seldom some Bobcats and once a Mountain Lion.
But - yes, I am armed. While living in Sacramento it was not like that but out here every place has some guns. It is way easier to handle a 6 foot rattler with a shotgun as with a spade. And more secure.
So I will be able to shoot down some drone coming up over them 14 acre I am living on. And I might even do it. But I guess it will not happen anyways, so this is just theoretical.
But when you live in a more populated area you can not do that.
I am personally very concerned about the loss of privacy we have now...
Mike
Privacy is different in the city. You expect it in your personal residence, but as soon as you step outside then all notion of privacy vanishes. And this isn't new or even unnatural, either.
In the country there are so few people that if you go anywhere or do anything it's a notable event, people will talk about it, at the end of the day everyone in the village knows exactly what you were up to.
In the city, with so many people milling around, nobody takes any notice.
What we have now is new and unnatural I believe. Yes, as soon as you step outside of your home anyone around can see you as usual. But now comes the possibility that every move you make, every purchase, phone call, everything can be recorded and tracked.
Somebody somewhere, like people in your government for example, can know everything about you all the time. They can set up automated systems to notify them of interesting facts about you.
This is a staggering power that will be used in bad ways. And no doubt has been already.
I do not believe that you should be able to use the air to do what you would not be allowed to do if your vehicle rolled on the ground. If your R/C device hovers 20' off the ground and you use it to go poking around my property with a camera that is every bit the same level of trespass it would be if your R/C device rolls around on the ground. If you loiter in your aircraft at 700' circling my property to video tape my activity with a zoom lens what is the difference between that and the other activities?
I believe that the unrestricted use of airspace should not cover these activities. Open airspace as a concept facilitates air travel. I can't get from here to there if I have to ask every person I overfly for permission. It's unworkable and that standard made complete sense for point-to-point flights. However operating with the clear intent to target one place and collect photos and video you would not be entitled to take walking on the ground should not be covered. There is no reason to deal with this as a "drone" issue at all. It applies to anything that flys. Be it 2" off the ground or 40,000' in the air.
Loitering above property to collect ongoing photos or video should not be permitted. Low altitude operation where the vehicle would become an obvious aggravation should also not be permitted. You have no right to buzz around someone else's home or property all afternoon.
Beyond this we really need no further laws specific to drones.