Is it ok to "spy" on your neighbors?
How high should you stay above someone's dwelling or backyard?
I lost a remote controlled airplane the other day, so I figured I could use my drone to look for it. So I was flying around looking on roofs. It looked pretty creepy hovering 20ft above houses.
I have not had good experiences with neighbors spying on me.
One answer to your question about drones, a friend suggested if something is flying low enough that you could hit it with a rifle, it might be your option to do so. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that is an action I'd take in every circumstance.
Is privacy even a sustainable concept anymore?
yes
What if you could not only buy land, but you could buy a specified space above that land? Drone hobbyists could either be free to, or licensed to fly in a certain zone, and commercial airliners the same. Layers upon layers of property! All tracked with simple altitude readings and GPS.
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 09:54 PM NHFT
What if you could not only buy land, but you could buy a specified space above that land? Drone hobbyists could either be free to, or licensed to fly in a certain zone, and commercial airliners the same. Layers upon layers of property! All tracked with simple altitude readings and GPS.
Who has original claim to the air space ? How is it acquired, does it correlate to the earth beneath it or is it independent of land?
How do you pay a flock of pigeons ? What about reparations for the Pterodactyl's ? Okay the last two questions were just to see if you were awake.
FAA regulations say I have to stay under 400ft. So if I am flying legal, the drone will be in rifle range.
Mostly I think I need to stay above nerf gun and throwing range. 100ft maybe. But I tend to fly around 400ft.
The scary thing is police are allowed to use consumer equipment. In Maine they passed a law that requires police to get a warrant before they can use one. But it also prohibits putting weapons on it. I will have to go to NH for that testing.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_126th/billtexts/SP007201.asp
Quote
An unmanned aerial vehicle may not be equipped with a weapon.
And you know all the city inspectors will be getting these things.
Quote from: Free libertarian on December 10, 2015, 10:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: eglove on December 10, 2015, 09:54 PM NHFT
What if you could not only buy land, but you could buy a specified space above that land? Drone hobbyists could either be free to, or licensed to fly in a certain zone, and commercial airliners the same. Layers upon layers of property! All tracked with simple altitude readings and GPS.
Who has original claim to the air space ? How is it acquired, does it correlate to the earth beneath it or is it independent of land?
How do you pay a flock of pigeons ? What about reparations for the Pterodactyl's ? Okay the last two questions were just to see if you were awake.
Well, just imagining the scenario, if you were to "push the button" and we have anarchy tomorrow, people could theoretically start claiming all the space above them into infinity. ("That planet is mine!!!") Of course, it wouldn't be enforceable until these claims started to become unified into agencies that would handle doing so. Any reasonably recognized agency wouldn't buy the whole infinity thing, but might recognize going pretty derned high.
This, at first, might create problems for commercial airliners and hobbyists who want that space above. Over time, it may be that real estate would stop recognizing anything above a certain limit, because holy crap how much do you need? Airlines might start buying up space and pushing for reasonable recognitions of how much a homeowner needs. Hobbyist organizations may do the same.
...I'm just spit-ballin' here. Why do I gotta' be the one to solve these issues? ...Unless you're making me King. I'm OK with that. ...If that's what you want.
All hail King eglove the genius who solved the air rights issue!
There is the legal concept of curtilage, the immediate surroundings of your home where it would be reasonable to expect privacy. Courts have thrown out pot growers' cases based on the "search" being unlawful due to the curtilage concept as opposed to "open fields" where even if posted, fenced, etc. the cops' search was not deemed unlawful. They seem to go by 500 feet as being open for their viewing pleasure of course they just lie. In a case in VT they were hovering just above the trees for 30 minutes and the court accepted the cops lie that they were above 500.
The 500ft limit is for fixed wing aircraft. It doesn't apply to helicopters.
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-119.html
This is the VT case:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/vt-supreme-court/1447419.html
?
QuoteThe United States Supreme Court has decided three aerial-surveillance cases; ?the Court ruled in each that the surveillance at issue was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. ?Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 448, 109 S.Ct. 693, 102 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989); ?Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 239, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986); ?California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 214, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986). ?
But now, because of these drones, that expectation of privacy over your house is gone. Anyone with a couple hundred dollars can buy a decent drone. It is amazing what you can get for $1000.
Yeah, the 500 foot I was referring to was what courts have decided is the difference between a legal and illegal view. Although I don't know if they have taken into account telephoto photography etc. Although they have ruled on FLIR and other enhanced vision technologies. Basically their logic seems to be that it is reasonable to expect that someone driving by your house can look over and see things, but if they stop and use binoculars to peer through your windows that is different.
I don't know what limitations should be for people having fun flying their drones around. Perhaps it will be first decided by civil lawsuits. My policy would be to follow the don't be a dick rule. Buzzing peoples houses in an annoying manner is different than just flying by.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/evidence-plain-view-officer-sees-it-airplane.html
Quote
Question:
Is evidence still considered to be in "plain view" if an officer sees it from an airplane?
Answer:
An officer who sees evidence from an airplane "fly-over" directed at a suspect's house or yard may testify as to what he has seen. He must have been in public air-space, and using equipment available to the general public. (California v. Ciraolo, U.S. Supreme Court, 1986.) Similarly, an officer may use binoculors or cameras with strong telephoto lenses, as long as the tools are available to the public.
Using high-tech tools to search a person's home, however, is another matter. Because of the legitimately strong expectation of privacy in one's home, a judge may rule that using tools that are not in general circulation is a search, for which a warrant would be required. For example, using a thermal imager on a home to detect the presence of a marijuana grow operation constitutes a search. (Kyllo v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, 2001.) Importantly, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the question of using high-tech tools to search a business.
by: Janet Portman, Attorney
DJI and FLIR just announced a new camera coming out early next year.
http://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dji-and-flir-systems-collaborate-to-develop-aerial-thermal-imaging-technology
http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-shoot-down-drone-over-his-house/
Judge rules man had right to shoot down drone over his houseQuoteIt was a case that gripped the nation. Or at least Kentucky.
Should it have temporarily escaped your pressured memory, William Merideth in July said he saw a drone flying above his property in Hillview, Kentucky.
He believed it was spying on his 16-year-old daughter who was sunbathing in the garden. So he took out his shotgun and blasted the drone out of the sky. He was arrested for wanton endangerment and criminal mischief.
Now a Kentucky court has declared Merideth an innocent man. Bullitt County District Court Judge Rebecca Ward on Monday dismissed all charges against Merideth, reported local TV station WDRB-TV.
The drone's owner, David Boggs, had produced flight data that insisted his machine had been flying higher than Merideth had claimed.
The judge, however, seems not a fan of big data. She's a woman of the people. She declared that two human witnesses saw the drone below the tree line. This evidence was, to her, conclusive. To her, this was an invasion of Merideth's privacy.
David Boggs says the drone was 270ft, and only over the dudes property for 2 seconds.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/
is this how blackie tells us that he is a drone pilot for the Feds?
(https://i.imgur.com/YOmBfFT.jpg)
My kids want to hit it with a stick. I think it is a primal instinct.
I was "spying" on a paper mill. It's amazing how big the place is. Is it ok to spy on polluters?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7jlHaPyOs
Yo' video is private.
fixed. I forgot to make it public when I re-uploaded with audio.
The controller software has an option to live stream to youtube, but I haven't tried that yet.
Which model is that? Great quality video.
I dream of using a cell network connected drone to input GPS coordinates to live stream yard sale previews so I don't have to drive all the way there if they ain't got shit.
DJI Phantom 3 (http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3-pro)
The video downlink to the controller is 720p, the same quality that i posted. Most video downlinks had been 640x480 until about a year ago. I was waiting for afordable HD video downlinks to hit the market.
No Flying in national parks
http://www.nps.gov/fire/aviation/safety/unmanned-aerial-systems.cfm
Registration will be required
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19856
Registration is a statutory requirement that applies to all aircraft. Under this rule, any owner of a small UAS who has previously operated an unmanned aircraft exclusively as a model aircraft prior to December 21, 2015, must register no later than February 19, 2016. Owners of any other UAS purchased for use as a model aircraft after December 21, 2015 must register before the first flight outdoors. Owners may use either the paper-based process or the new streamlined, web-based system. Owners using the new streamlined web-based system must be at least 13 years old to register.
Owners may register through a web-based system at www.faa.gov/uas/registration
Registrants will need to provide their name, home address and e-mail address. Upon completion of the registration process, the web application will generate a Certificate of Aircraft Registration/Proof of Ownership that will include a unique identification number for the UAS owner, which must be marked on the aircraft.
Owners using the model aircraft for hobby or recreation will only have to register once and may use the same identification number for all of their model UAS. The registration is valid for three years.
The normal registration fee is $5, but in an effort to encourage as many people as possible to register quickly, the FAA is waiving this fee for the first 30 days (from Dec. 21, 2015 to Jan 20, 2016).
The government put out an RFP for anti drone defense.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7495ac616b40525dfbb5c9840a89a726&tab=core&tabmode=list
AFICA - Portable Anti Drone Defense
Solicitation Number: FA6800-16-Q-S005
Agency: Department of the Air Force
Office: AFICA
Location: AFICA- CONUS
Synopsis:
Added: Dec 22, 2015 2:46 pm
The Air Force Global Strike Command is requesting three (3) systems to counter unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), also commonly known as personal drones. There are three main areas in counter UAS (cUAS): detect, identify and defeat. This system should address the defeat portion. This portion needs to disrupt the control link between a commercial UAS and the pilot causing the UAS to fall into its preprogrammed "lost link" protocol. The system should provide the additional ability to disrupt the UAS's ability to receive and use satellite navigation signals (GPS and GLONASS) for navigation purposes. The satellite navigation disruption should be engaged with a separate trigger to allow for different CONOPs. The key aspects of this system is that it must be portable in its effectiveness across a wide range of UAS targets. This system must allow the operator the opportunity to quickly deploy a cUAS system and be effective all while reducing negative effects on friendly assets.
The system must have the below attributes:
• Small: handheld component less than 54" x 12" x 6"
• Light: less than 40lbs
• Portable: all electronics and antennas inclusive, either in a backpack or on the unit allowing detached use by a single operator.
• Intuitive trigger-operated: familiar operation to a shooter
• Long standby time: greater than 1 month
• Low complexity: no software, no firmware
• Effective on a majority of Group 1 and Group 2 commercial UAS that could be sold in the United States
• Must be able to disrupt communications on 2.4 and 5.8 GHz ISM bands, Stop autonomous waypoint flights
• Disrupt satellite navigation on GPS L1 and GLONAS L1
• Common battery: use of a common lightweight rechargable battery for all power
We require a quantity of three (3) systems to be delivered to the address below no later than (NLT) 30 days after contract award. We request training on these systems to take place at this same location. Training will include use, service, maintnenance, and basic repair. It will be in a format of "Train the Trainier" and include information and handouts that can be duplicated for the local security forces trainers to use in training other security forces personnel. This training should occur NLT 50 days after contract award.
See what you've done. they're on to you and now we all must suffer!
(http://www.remingtonproducts.com/~/media/Images/Remington/WomensProducts/HairCare/HairDryers/d5015bprd2.ashx)
Drone Registration: Researchers Say Benefits are Questionable (http://dronelife.com/2016/01/31/drone-registration-researcher-say-benefits-are-questionable/)QuoteResearchers at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University have published public comments to the FAA on the drone registration program, calling the benefits "questionable" and proposing an alternative.
Eli Dourado, Director of Technology Policy Program of the Mercatus Center, which studies the impact of regulation on society, and Samuel Hammond, an MA Fellow at the center, were authors of the study. While the researchers have laid out compelling facts and figures to support their analysis of the costs of drone registration, the message of the piece is clear: the registration program as it stands is not backed by law, the purported benefits of the program are low, and there is an obvious alternative.
The document makes a new argument against the legality of drone registration. While other parties have protested that Section 336 of the FMRA prohibits new regulation, Dourado and Hammond have a new take:
We agree with the FAA that "the prohibition against future rulemaking is not a complete bar on rulemaking." Instead, our position is that although the FAA may have authority to require non- commercial UAS operators to register their aircraft, it most certainly does not have authority to do so in the context of its plans and policies relating to its required integration of UAS ...Congress clearly intended that FMRA not be used as a pretext to diminish the freedom from regulatory burdens that modelers have heretofore enjoyed.
Moreover, while the FAA has existing authority to register aircraft, 14 C.F.R. part 48 requires registration of drone operators effective December 21, 2015. Registration of operators has no basis in existing law, underscoring the IFR as a new regulation regarding model aircraft...