What could be nicer...
 

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:20:12 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 11/11/15 12:08 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:15:29 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:06:46 -0500, wrote:

I suppose if it was a regular thing you would fight fire with fire.
Shoot a video with a point of reference in the shot that showed the
drone trespassing on your property and file a complaint. Realistically
your best chance would be in civil court.

You'd have to have two videos going for that point of reference. And, you'd have to
prove ownership and/or control of the drone also. That could be difficult.

It would be pretty easy where I am with a single camera. I could just
get the power lines in the shot and it would be pretty simple to
determine from the angle of the shot exactly where the drone was.
That is particularly true if I shot from inside the screen cage so you
had two coordinates in the shot.

Figuring out who's drone it is becomes the main problem with all of
the registration schemed tho. It is not like these things have
transponders or tail numbers, even if the RSW TRACON had the people to
track them. You would just have to get in the golf cart and follow it
home. These things only fly 20 or 30 minutes.

Of course I suppose I could start shooting 2" mortars at it and wait
for someone to come bitch about it. Fireworks are legal here. ;-)
Shot out of a 6' PVC pipe, you can get pretty accurate with one and
the air burst is about 100' in diameter with the right shell.
It is just scaring birds if anyone asks.


Can't you buy a radar controlled anti-aircraft gun in Florida? :)

Dunno, I just found my old DC cop buddy who I lost when I moved here.
He turns out to be a class III FFL right here in Florida (Tarpon
Springs) I will ask him ;-)

As for now I will just have to shoot my mortars with iron sights

What could be nicer...
 

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.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!


Bedroom shots would be a lot different than a selfie stick over the fence.

What could be nicer...
 

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.



Each state has its own voyeurism laws. Doubt if the FAA will ever get involved in
that.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

What could be nicer...
 

On 11/11/2015 1:04 PM, John H. 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.



Each state has its own voyeurism laws. Doubt if the FAA will ever get involved in
that.

I am not even talking about voyeurism. I am of the mindset that flying
a RC drone, quad, whatever at low altitudes over other people's property
should be considered a violation of their reasonable right to privacy
and should be included in RC restrictions. The fact that you don't
think it could be enforced doesn't mean the restriction shouldn't be
placed and made part of published regulations.

What could be nicer...
 

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:55:19 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

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.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!


Bedroom shots would be a lot different than a selfie stick over the fence.

Legally? How? Do you think the cops could get a warrant because you saw a drone in
the air, or a camera held up over your fence? Even if it were illegal, you'd have no
proof a picture was taken.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

What could be nicer...
 

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.

What could be nicer...
 

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!

What could be nicer...
 

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.

What could be nicer...
 

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:15:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/11/2015 1:04 PM, John H. 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.



Each state has its own voyeurism laws. Doubt if the FAA will ever get involved in
that.

I am not even talking about voyeurism. I am of the mindset that flying
a RC drone, quad, whatever at low altitudes over other people's property
should be considered a violation of their reasonable right to privacy
and should be included in RC restrictions. The fact that you don't
think it could be enforced doesn't mean the restriction shouldn't be
placed and made part of published regulations.


So it should be illegal to fly a drone over a neighboring farmer's field? Or would it
only be illegal to fly over his back yard? And if the question is privacy, how would
you know whether or not the drone had a camera? Or a first person view capability?

The mission of the FAA is 'is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system
in the world.'

Drones flying over back yards at low altitude pose no threat to the safety or
efficiency of the aerospace system.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

What could be nicer...
 

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:26:06 -0500, 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'm surprised TSA hasn't gotten big-time involved with the drone issue yet. Maybe
they think the 'registration' process will have an impact. (Chuckle, chuckle)
--

Ban idiots, not guns!