On 11/11/2015 1:31 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/11/15 1:26 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:20:54 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/11/2015 6:51 AM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:38:52 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/10/2015 4:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/10/2015 3:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:22:38 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:48:37 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

I think there are laws a lot of places about filming in to
neighbors
private spaces. I know here your security cameras can not
film the
neighbors private areas. Front door is ok, etc.

That might just be a California thing to slow down the paparazzi


I do not know of the backyard if easily seen is a private
place, but
i bet
most states have such laws. Like filming in locker rooms or
public
toilets.

California's voyeurism laws on page 11:

The filming/viewing must be..." 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" or
"...under or through
clothing."

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/voyeurism_statutes_mar_09.pdf

In this document the term 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is
used
very
frequently. A clear definition of same is hard to find, but it
seems
to be 'the
interior' of various types of rooms. I could not find 'back yard'
mentioned anywhere.
Does a person in their own backyard have a 'reasonable
expectation of
privacy'? I
think not, but then again, it depends. If my next door neighbor
has a
window facing
my back yard and can see over my fence, then I can't reasonably
expect
that I won't
be observed in my back yard.

Likewise, as I have an upstairs window looking over his deck
(and hot
tub) they
shouldn't 'reasonably expect the privacy' to be bathing nude.



Common sense dictates that being able to see your neighbor's
backyard
from your house or property is *not* a violation of his"reasonable
expectation of privacy". Flying a remotely controlled, camera
equipped
drone *over* your neighbor's property and video recording
whatever is
happening certainly is, IMO.





John, I accidentally deleted the reply you made to my post (above)
so I
can't reply to it directly.

All the statutes you are citing don't have anything to do with
remotely
controlled drones, quads or whatever you want to call them. They
were
most likely drafted and put into the laws well before the advent
of of
cheap drones equipped with cameras. This is exactly the point I was
making at the beginning of this thread. The FAA has not yet
determined
how to deal with this ... if they are going to deal with it at all.

It matters not if you can video record your neighbor's backyard from
your property or house. Current laws govern that. It's completely
different to purposely fly a remotely controlled drone *over* your
neighbor's property, especially to take video recordings.



You have a resonance expectation of privacy in your back yard. You
know
your neighbors and may know they are not home. A drone would be in
the
same category as putting a camera on a long stick and taking
pictures over
the fence. Both should get jail / fine. You have your young
kids mostly
naked in the wading pool. And someone reaches over the fence and
snaps
pics? Legal or illegal? Most likely subject to a jury awarding huge
amounts of money to you and your kids if the photographer has assets.

...or standing in your upstairs bedroom taking pictures over the
fence. Morally, I
agree with you. Legally, you'd have a lot of proving to do. From
what I've read of
the CA law, you'd not have a legal leg to stand on. But, the law I
posted was from
2009, so maybe things have changed now.

Some of the FAA regulations were changed in 2012 to cover RC aircraft
but they still do not address the issue of flying them over other
people's property and video recording.



I think these drones are going to open up a lot of new issues in the
law. It is hard to find any current regulations that actually apply.
Aerial photos usually came from GA aircraft that were flying at over
500 feet so air rights were not an issue and "model" planes were
generally expensive and hard enough to fly that they were dedicated
hobbyists. These things are easy enough for anyone to fly one, they
are cheap and even the cheap ones have pretty capable cameras in them.

There can really be troubling when the idea of weaponizing one comes
up.



I've got the perfect anti-drone weapon. I'll just take off all my
clothes, go out on the deck, and plop down on a chaise, belly button up.
That should discourage 'em!

It'll scare the critters away too.