On 11/11/2015 4:01 PM, John H. wrote:
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.

sigh I guess this isn't worth any further discussion.

We were originally talking about flying the damn things over
neighbor's back yards. Now you want to discuss flying over
a neighboring farmer's field.

We were originally talking about reasonable right to privacy.
Now you want to talk about how they pose no threat to the safety
or efficiency of the aerospace system.

What you haven't acknowledged yet is the jury is still out on
how the FAA or other government agency is going to decide on
the privacy issue. Again, it's a relatively new capability of
cheap, camera equipped quads that any yahoo with an Amazon account
or credit card can buy for $100.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:42:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/11/2015 4:01 PM, John H. wrote:
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.

sigh I guess this isn't worth any further discussion.

We were originally talking about flying the damn things over
neighbor's back yards. Now you want to discuss flying over
a neighboring farmer's field.

You used the phrase 'other people's property'. If you meant only their back yards,
then I suppose you should have said so.

We were originally talking about reasonable right to privacy.
Now you want to talk about how they pose no threat to the safety
or efficiency of the aerospace system.

And I questioned your definition of 'reasonable right to privacy' because almost
every law I saw used the word 'indoors'. None made mention of a back yard swimming
pool. Now, if the swimming pool were enclosed and I somehow snuck a drone in there,
then I'd say you have a legitimate voyeurism issue.

What you haven't acknowledged yet is the jury is still out on
how the FAA or other government agency is going to decide on
the privacy issue. Again, it's a relatively new capability of
cheap, camera equipped quads that any yahoo with an Amazon account
or credit card can buy for $100.


Until now, I'd seen nothing to indicate the FAA or other agency is even considering
the 'privacy' issue. There is much consideration given to the safety issue, however.

An interesting paragraph responding to a lawsuit from the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC):

"The FAA recognizes that the size and the unique characteristics and capabilities
of small unmanned aircraft systems may pose risks to individual privacy. But these
risks are connected to the use of recording equipment installed on the unmanned
aircraft; they are not tied directly to the airworthiness or safe operation of the
aircraft itself. Indeed, this technology has long been used on manned aircraft for a
variety of purposes, including news and traffic reports, film and television
production, and law enforcement. But, in its long history as a regulatory agency,
the FAA has never extended its administrative reach to regulate the use of cameras or
other recording devices on manned aircraft in order to protect individual privacy, an
issue that does not implicate FAA’s core function of ensuring aviation safety."

The entire response may be found he
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/epic...-FAA-Brief.pdf

The EPIC news is he
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/

Not sure what the 'sigh' was for.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 11/11/2015 5:55 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:42:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/11/2015 4:01 PM, John H. wrote:
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.

sigh I guess this isn't worth any further discussion.

We were originally talking about flying the damn things over
neighbor's back yards. Now you want to discuss flying over
a neighboring farmer's field.

You used the phrase 'other people's property'. If you meant only their back yards,
then I suppose you should have said so.

We were originally talking about reasonable right to privacy.
Now you want to talk about how they pose no threat to the safety
or efficiency of the aerospace system.

And I questioned your definition of 'reasonable right to privacy' because almost
every law I saw used the word 'indoors'. None made mention of a back yard swimming
pool. Now, if the swimming pool were enclosed and I somehow snuck a drone in there,
then I'd say you have a legitimate voyeurism issue.

What you haven't acknowledged yet is the jury is still out on
how the FAA or other government agency is going to decide on
the privacy issue. Again, it's a relatively new capability of
cheap, camera equipped quads that any yahoo with an Amazon account
or credit card can buy for $100.


Until now, I'd seen nothing to indicate the FAA or other agency is even considering
the 'privacy' issue. There is much consideration given to the safety issue, however.

An interesting paragraph responding to a lawsuit from the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC):

"The FAA recognizes that the size and the unique characteristics and capabilities
of small unmanned aircraft systems may pose risks to individual privacy. But these
risks are connected to the use of recording equipment installed on the unmanned
aircraft; they are not tied directly to the airworthiness or safe operation of the
aircraft itself. Indeed, this technology has long been used on manned aircraft for a
variety of purposes, including news and traffic reports, film and television
production, and law enforcement. But, in its long history as a regulatory agency,
the FAA has never extended its administrative reach to regulate the use of cameras or
other recording devices on manned aircraft in order to protect individual privacy, an
issue that does not implicate FAA’s core function of ensuring aviation safety."

The entire response may be found he
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/epic...-FAA-Brief.pdf

The EPIC news is he
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/

Not sure what the 'sigh' was for.

It's a natural reaction to the goal post constantly being shifted.

On 11/11/15 6:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/11/2015 5:55 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:42:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/11/2015 4:01 PM, John H. wrote:
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.

sigh I guess this isn't worth any further discussion.

We were originally talking about flying the damn things over
neighbor's back yards. Now you want to discuss flying over
a neighboring farmer's field.

You used the phrase 'other people's property'. If you meant only their
back yards,
then I suppose you should have said so.

We were originally talking about reasonable right to privacy.
Now you want to talk about how they pose no threat to the safety
or efficiency of the aerospace system.

And I questioned your definition of 'reasonable right to privacy'
because almost
every law I saw used the word 'indoors'. None made mention of a back
yard swimming
pool. Now, if the swimming pool were enclosed and I somehow snuck a
drone in there,
then I'd say you have a legitimate voyeurism issue.

What you haven't acknowledged yet is the jury is still out on
how the FAA or other government agency is going to decide on
the privacy issue. Again, it's a relatively new capability of
cheap, camera equipped quads that any yahoo with an Amazon account
or credit card can buy for $100.


Until now, I'd seen nothing to indicate the FAA or other agency is
even considering
the 'privacy' issue. There is much consideration given to the safety
issue, however.

An interesting paragraph responding to a lawsuit from the Electronic
Privacy
Information Center (EPIC):

"The FAA recognizes that the size and the unique characteristics and
capabilities
of small unmanned aircraft systems may pose risks to individual
privacy. But these
risks are connected to the use of recording equipment installed on the
unmanned
aircraft; they are not tied directly to the airworthiness or safe
operation of the
aircraft itself. Indeed, this technology has long been used on manned
aircraft for a
variety of purposes, including news and traffic reports, film and
television
production, and law enforcement. But, in its long history as a
regulatory agency,
the FAA has never extended its administrative reach to regulate the
use of cameras or
other recording devices on manned aircraft in order to protect
individual privacy, an
issue that does not implicate FAA’s core function of ensuring aviation
safety."

The entire response may be found he
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/epic...-FAA-Brief.pdf

The EPIC news is he
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/

Not sure what the 'sigh' was for.

It's a natural reaction to the goal post constantly being shifted.



It's sorta like the NRA objecting to anything and everything that it
perceives might mean more government interference between its boys and
their toys.

Justan Olphart wrote:
On 11/11/2015 1:31 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

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.


And the IRS.

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:42:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/11/2015 4:01 PM, John H. wrote:
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.
sigh I guess this isn't worth any further discussion.

We were originally talking about flying the damn things over
neighbor's back yards. Now you want to discuss flying over
a neighboring farmer's field.

You used the phrase 'other people's property'. If you meant only their back yards,
then I suppose you should have said so.

We were originally talking about reasonable right to privacy.
Now you want to talk about how they pose no threat to the safety
or efficiency of the aerospace system.

And I questioned your definition of 'reasonable right to privacy' because almost
every law I saw used the word 'indoors'. None made mention of a back yard swimming
pool. Now, if the swimming pool were enclosed and I somehow snuck a drone in there,
then I'd say you have a legitimate voyeurism issue.

What you haven't acknowledged yet is the jury is still out on
how the FAA or other government agency is going to decide on
the privacy issue. Again, it's a relatively new capability of
cheap, camera equipped quads that any yahoo with an Amazon account
or credit card can buy for $100.


Until now, I'd seen nothing to indicate the FAA or other agency is even considering
the 'privacy' issue. There is much consideration given to the safety issue, however.

An interesting paragraph responding to a lawsuit from the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC):

"The FAA recognizes that the size and the unique characteristics and capabilities
of small unmanned aircraft systems may pose risks to individual privacy. But these
risks are connected to the use of recording equipment installed on the unmanned
aircraft; they are not tied directly to the airworthiness or safe operation of the
aircraft itself. Indeed, this technology has long been used on manned aircraft for a
variety of purposes, including news and traffic reports, film and television
production, and law enforcement. But, in its long history as a regulatory agency,
the FAA has never extended its administrative reach to regulate the use of cameras or
other recording devices on manned aircraft in order to protect individual privacy, an
issue that does not implicate FAA’s core function of ensuring aviation safety."

The entire response may be found he
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/epic...-FAA-Brief.pdf

The EPIC news is he
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/

Not sure what the 'sigh' was for.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!


Then there are companies like this...

https://boatpix.com/

So the bow of my yacht isn't safe at sea anymore?

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:08:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/11/2015 5:55 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:42:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/11/2015 4:01 PM, John H. wrote:
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.

sigh I guess this isn't worth any further discussion.

We were originally talking about flying the damn things over
neighbor's back yards. Now you want to discuss flying over
a neighboring farmer's field.

You used the phrase 'other people's property'. If you meant only their back yards,
then I suppose you should have said so.

We were originally talking about reasonable right to privacy.
Now you want to talk about how they pose no threat to the safety
or efficiency of the aerospace system.

And I questioned your definition of 'reasonable right to privacy' because almost
every law I saw used the word 'indoors'. None made mention of a back yard swimming
pool. Now, if the swimming pool were enclosed and I somehow snuck a drone in there,
then I'd say you have a legitimate voyeurism issue.

What you haven't acknowledged yet is the jury is still out on
how the FAA or other government agency is going to decide on
the privacy issue. Again, it's a relatively new capability of
cheap, camera equipped quads that any yahoo with an Amazon account
or credit card can buy for $100.


Until now, I'd seen nothing to indicate the FAA or other agency is even considering
the 'privacy' issue. There is much consideration given to the safety issue, however.

An interesting paragraph responding to a lawsuit from the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC):

"The FAA recognizes that the size and the unique characteristics and capabilities
of small unmanned aircraft systems may pose risks to individual privacy. But these
risks are connected to the use of recording equipment installed on the unmanned
aircraft; they are not tied directly to the airworthiness or safe operation of the
aircraft itself. Indeed, this technology has long been used on manned aircraft for a
variety of purposes, including news and traffic reports, film and television
production, and law enforcement. But, in its long history as a regulatory agency,
the FAA has never extended its administrative reach to regulate the use of cameras or
other recording devices on manned aircraft in order to protect individual privacy, an
issue that does not implicate FAA’s core function of ensuring aviation safety."

The entire response may be found he
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/epic...-FAA-Brief.pdf

The EPIC news is he
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/

Not sure what the 'sigh' was for.

It's a natural reaction to the goal post constantly being shifted.

Right.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:01:29 -0500, John H.
wrote:

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.

The function of the FCC is to regulate the airwaves and make sure we
have the orderly use of the bandwidth but they got involved with Janet
Jackson's nipple. It is just the nature of federal agencies.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:42:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

We were originally talking about flying the damn things over
neighbor's back yards. Now you want to discuss flying over
a neighboring farmer's field.

That is the problem when you write laws. What constitutes invading
privacy? Who knows what goes on in corn fields?

On 11/11/2015 10:47 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:01:29 -0500, John H.
wrote:

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.

The function of the FCC is to regulate the airwaves and make sure we
have the orderly use of the bandwidth but they got involved with Janet
Jackson's nipple. It is just the nature of federal agencies.


John's correct about the FAA's mission regarding safety of the aerospace
system which is why it hasn't dealt with privacy issues
regarding quads. It will probably end up being Congress that initiates
a law or laws that limits their use for spying on neighbors.