|
What could be nicer...
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. |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:04:02 -0500, "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. Here's my response to your last: Why? Because of the angle? I could be filming out my bedroom window if I so desired. I can understand that in your case, where your back yard is not visible by anyone standing in or on their property, that your 'expectation of privacy' is different than mine. But, if I had a drone not over your property, there is some altitude where I could probably see in your back yard. Would that be a violation of your 'reasonable expectation of privacy' or voyeurism? Wonder what the MA laws state. Go to page 39: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/voyeurism_statutes_mar_09.pdf "Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person's knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 year s or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment." If I'm using a drone, I'm not secretly conducting or hiding the activity, and there is still the question of where is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Does a back yard fall into that category? Yours might, if surrounded by a few hundred acres of woods, but mine sure doesn't. [Please note, I'm not espousing the use of drones in the conduct of such activities. I've been in the house all day, except when my wife came home at lunchtime, I'm bored, can't work outside, can't go for a nice bike ride, so I'm playing on the computer.] -- Ban idiots, not guns! -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
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. |
What could be nicer...
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. |
What could be nicer...
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. That is certainly not the way it was explained to us. You have no expectation of privacy from a person standing in a public place or their own property. That is why they don't have picture windows facing the street in a locker room. I agree the altitude provided by a drone flies in the face of what people think as a public street but I think that in most places the law has not caught up with the new reality I do believe the guiding legislation may come from California or the NYC area, just because of the celebrity connections and the money they bring to the table. DC has already dealt with it around the monuments using existing federal law and the ADIZ (the FAA exclusion zone) |
What could be nicer...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:57:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. The question is, what if you are still over your own property or the street, shooting an oblique into the neighbor's lot. They have to be careful or you will be telling the property appraiser that their aerials are illegal. |
What could be nicer...
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! |
What could be nicer...
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? :) |
What could be nicer...
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. |
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! |
What could be nicer...
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. |
What could be nicer...
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! |
What could be nicer...
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. |
What could be nicer...
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. |
What could be nicer...
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. |
What could be nicer...
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? |
What could be nicer...
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! |
What could be nicer...
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. |
What could be nicer...
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? |
What could be nicer...
|
What could be nicer...
|
What could be nicer...
|
What could be nicer...
On 11/12/2015 5:49 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:52:12 -0500, wrote: 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? I think the bigger fear is for those guys swimming naked while a drone flown by a 12-year-old is overhead and then getting arrested for indecent exposure - as in Harry's idea. Ah! I just thought of the perfect place for "hobbyists" to go fly their quads. Public and private golf courses. Lots of room, not too many people in any particular area and sounding like giant mosquitoes will only offend a few. |
What could be nicer...
On 11/12/15 6:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/12/2015 5:49 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:52:12 -0500, wrote: 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? I think the bigger fear is for those guys swimming naked while a drone flown by a 12-year-old is overhead and then getting arrested for indecent exposure - as in Harry's idea. Ah! I just thought of the perfect place for "hobbyists" to go fly their quads. Public and private golf courses. Lots of room, not too many people in any particular area and sounding like giant mosquitoes will only offend a few. And RV parks...I mean, who really knows what goes on in those places? :) |
What could be nicer...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:13:35 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/12/2015 5:49 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:52:12 -0500, wrote: 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? I think the bigger fear is for those guys swimming naked while a drone flown by a 12-year-old is overhead and then getting arrested for indecent exposure - as in Harry's idea. Ah! I just thought of the perfect place for "hobbyists" to go fly their quads. Public and private golf courses. Lots of room, not too many people in any particular area and sounding like giant mosquitoes will only offend a few. The county prohibits flying in any of the county golf courses! Actually, the drones don't need room to fly. A deck makes a great field for a drone. I wish the county would let airplanes have a couple holes every couple weeks. Numbers 11 and 12 at Greendale would be great. Players could go straight from 10 to 13. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:30:53 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/12/15 6:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/12/2015 5:49 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:52:12 -0500, wrote: 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? I think the bigger fear is for those guys swimming naked while a drone flown by a 12-year-old is overhead and then getting arrested for indecent exposure - as in Harry's idea. Ah! I just thought of the perfect place for "hobbyists" to go fly their quads. Public and private golf courses. Lots of room, not too many people in any particular area and sounding like giant mosquitoes will only offend a few. And RV parks...I mean, who really knows what goes on in those places? :) I've flown drones in RV parks twice, with grandkids. No problem. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On 11/12/2015 6:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/12/2015 5:49 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:52:12 -0500, wrote: 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? I think the bigger fear is for those guys swimming naked while a drone flown by a 12-year-old is overhead and then getting arrested for indecent exposure - as in Harry's idea. Ah! I just thought of the perfect place for "hobbyists" to go fly their quads. Public and private golf courses. Lots of room, not too many people in any particular area and sounding like giant mosquitoes will only offend a few. I have no objection to that so long as they abide by the rules and pay the fees for the use of the course. |
What could be nicer...
On 11/12/2015 6:30 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/12/15 6:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/12/2015 5:49 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:52:12 -0500, wrote: 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? I think the bigger fear is for those guys swimming naked while a drone flown by a 12-year-old is overhead and then getting arrested for indecent exposure - as in Harry's idea. Ah! I just thought of the perfect place for "hobbyists" to go fly their quads. Public and private golf courses. Lots of room, not too many people in any particular area and sounding like giant mosquitoes will only offend a few. And RV parks...I mean, who really knows what goes on in those places? :) Get yourself a quad and find out for yourself. Or, better yet, convince your bride to buy you a camper and join in on the fun. The friendliness and camaraderie might rub off on you. In a way it's like boating where participants look after each other, usually. But, as in every social situation, there's always a few jerks who won't play nice. |
What could be nicer...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:26:38 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 11/12/2015 6:30 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/12/15 6:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/12/2015 5:49 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:52:12 -0500, wrote: 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? I think the bigger fear is for those guys swimming naked while a drone flown by a 12-year-old is overhead and then getting arrested for indecent exposure - as in Harry's idea. Ah! I just thought of the perfect place for "hobbyists" to go fly their quads. Public and private golf courses. Lots of room, not too many people in any particular area and sounding like giant mosquitoes will only offend a few. And RV parks...I mean, who really knows what goes on in those places? :) Get yourself a quad and find out for yourself. Or, better yet, convince your bride to buy you a camper and join in on the fun. The friendliness and camaraderie might rub off on you. In a way it's like boating where participants look after each other, usually. But, as in every social situation, there's always a few jerks who won't play nice. So far, I've met only one jerk. But then Harry hasn't been to any RV parks that I know of. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
What could be nicer...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 05:46:25 -0500, John H.
wrote: Janet's nipple was not an orderly use of the bandwidth. That was absolutely gross. A Taylor Swift nip slip, on the other hand, would have been quite orderly. (Hope that's not racist!) === Quite possibly. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com