> I would imagine that you may be allowed to shoot that tin can down in the US This is the debatable part. The FAA considers drones to be aircraft—and under fe

> I would imagine that you may be allowed to shoot that tin can down in the US This is the debatable part. The FAA considers drones to be aircraft—and under federal law, shooting at aircraft is a crime [0]. The devil's in the details of course. Such cases were usually dismissed because it means trying whether a drone is considered to be trespassing or not and no judge wants to touch this. The best precedent on this is from the 1946 States v. Causby when the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air. [1] Again, the law failed to keep up with the ever accelerating evolution of tech and the SC will probably have to weigh in on pretty much every topic soon, to tweak the interpretation of every outdated law. > information is legally obtained Which is why I said that it's not a real choice, not if you have to give up things that are considered more or less basic needs or requirements today. That's because most such information is obtained perfectly legally so there is no recourse. Internet tracking, real life face recognition at every step, all your devices collecting data on you, your "choice" is to pretty isolate yourself from society. Is it a realistic choice then? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32 [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/328/256.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/328/256.html