Drone ethics

[blackie]

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.

[Free libertarian]

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.

[Jay]

Is privacy even a sustainable concept anymore?

[Jim Johnson]

yes

[eglove]

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.

[Free libertarian]

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. 

[blackie]

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

An unmanned aerial vehicle may not be equipped with a weapon.

And you know all the city inspectors will be getting these things.

[eglove]

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.

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

[blackie]

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

?

The 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.

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

[blackie]

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/evidence-plain-view-officer-sees-it-airplane.html

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 house

It 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/

[Russell Kanning]

is this how blackie tells us that he is a drone pilot for the Feds?

[Jay]

[blackie]

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