3 ms·
Own? No. But, law is fairly clear that an owner is entitled to freedom from excessive noise and passage by airborne carriers. If an aircraft is in flight so low
by callmeed 10y ago
Own? No. But, law is fairly clear that an owner is entitled to freedom from excessive noise and passage by airborne carriers. If an aircraft is in flight so low that it is unreasonably disturbing to the landowner, the aircraft could be held liable for trespassing on your property.
- onion2k 10y agoPresumably that only entitles you to call the police rather than "neutralise" the problem though.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago> If an aircraft is in flight so low that it is unreasonably disturbing to the landowner, the aircraft could be held liable for trespassing on your property. This isn't true at all in the United States, and if you destroy the craft, the FAA will prosecute you under federal law. https://www.engadget.com/2016/04/18/faa-says-shooting-down-drones-is-a-federal-crime/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/04/18/faa-says-shooting-down-d...
- sverige 10y agoThat is not what the linked article says. The FAA may consider it a crime, but prosecuting any specific incident is another matter entirely. The article even notes that means other than shooting it down would make for a "messy" case. And you will need to involve law enforcement to recover your wrecked drone from my property, since I won't allow you to trespass. And since when did all the privacy advocates on HN decide it's OK to fly your drone and camera over other people's property? Or is it only OK if you're being paid to do so and not a government entity?
- toomuchtodo 10y agoFederal law supercedes non-existent privacy law in the US. I agree there should be privacy regulations to prevent drone intrusion, but that's up to the FAA to update the regulations around airspace use.