4 ms·

>But as the technology proliferates, privacy advocates say regulations have not kept up, opening the door to intrusive surveillance that would be illegal if con

>But as the technology proliferates, privacy advocates say regulations have not kept up, opening the door to intrusive surveillance that would be illegal if conducted by a human police officer. Since these drones don't fly themselves and there is a trained officer somewhere at the controls then this surveillance is in fact conducted by a human police officer and should be an illegal violation of privacy. Frankly if one of these things shows up over my backyard while I'm smoking a brisket for my family I'm gonna moon it and make lewd hand gestures.

edrxty 3y ago
The FAA needs to stop regulating them as manned aircraft so it's not a felony to down them intentionally
- doodlebugging 3y ago
  I agree. A drone that stays over someone else's private property is their problem. If it is operated from neighboring property as a device to gather information about me when I am on my property then that changes everything. When it is purposely guided over mine then I should have the option to handle it in any way I deem appropriate. Looking into my back yard, which is enclosed by a fence and is therefore not open for public viewing should be a violation of my privacy.
horsawlarway 3y ago
I think the deciding factor is going to be how we define "observable to the public" now that flying cameras on are the table. My sad guess is that the general rule will change to accept things that can see your property from public airspace as "observable to the public", and that eventually building design and landscaping will change to give you private spaces outdoors if you have money and desire.
- doodlebugging 3y ago
  This may be how it works out but anyone arguing that an observer flying in an airplane through public airspace has the same opportunity to peer into your private back yard or other areas of your private property is arguing apples and oranges. Most people flying in planes are passengers in transit between two locations with no opportunity to guide the plane to allow them to view specific locations. On the other hand a drone operator has full control of the path the drone takes and can operate it so that it peers into private spaces from public airspace. If a property is marked as private property then that privacy should offer protection from those who would trespass using public airspace.
  - horsawlarway 3y ago
    But you can't limit it like this... the airspace is public! So for commercial flights... sure - but there are a whole host of private pilots owners that absolutely can do this. Ex - how do you think news helicopters work? Basically, I'm saying that this phrase > "who would trespass using public airspace" is non-sense. You can't have public space that is being trespassed on. You can apply some limitations (ex: a pilot's license) but many drone pilots already need to be registered anyways. At best, you can argue that there was a clear expectation of privacy (aka: the same argument that prevents you from pointing a telescope at the windows of a private bathroom from public land) and make it illegal after the fact, but I don't really believe that the courts will accept that you have the same expectation of privacy in an outdoor area visible from public space (incl airspace) as you would in a bathroom.
runlevel1 3y ago
I know of a couple related SCOTUS cases on the topic -- both split 5-4: California v. Ciraolo (1985)[1]: > Question: Did the warrantless, aerial observation of Ciraolo's back yard from an altitude of 1,000 feet constitute an illegal search and violate the Fourth Amendment? > Conclusion: The divided Court found that the observation did not violate the Constitution. Chief Justice Burger reasoned that the Fourth Amendment protections regarding the home had never been absolute: for example, police officers are not obligated to shield their eyes when passing homes on public streets or sidewalks. Since the observations of the Santa Clara officers was "nonintrusive" and "took place within public navigable airspace," their actions were consistent with the Fourth Amendment. "Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything that these officers observed," concluded Burger. The dissenters, led by Justice Powell, argued that this decision was a significant departure from the Court's holding in Katz v. United States (1967) which established a two-part test to evaluate privacy claims. Kyllo v. United States (2001)[2]: This case has to do with use of thermal-imaging (without a warrant) to detect if marijuana was being grown inside a house. The court held that it was an unlawful search because it was effectively using technology to peer inside the home without a warrant. While that's not the same as looking into someone's backyard, the opinions have a lot to say about police using technology to erode the privacy of one's home.[3] [1]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1513 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1513 [2]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-8508 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-8508 [3]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opinion-1960955 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opin...
- doodlebugging 3y ago
  I know there are conflicting rulings. I think both of them need updating to be able to cover trespass and violation of privacy using aerial drones that have many more sensor packages available today.
Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
Can't you just shoot them down? https://www.cnet.com/culture/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-shoot-down-drone-over-his-house/ https://www.cnet.com/culture/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-sh...
- doodlebugging 3y ago
  After an incident with a drone peering through their window one evening after dusk, one of my close relatives tracked the drone to a neighbor and let that neighbor know that it better not happen again. Then they contacted the sheriff and game warden and reported the drone trespass and they were told that if it happened again they should shoot it down and turn it over for evidentiary analysis and the sheriff would handle it for them. They own land in a rural area that is surrounded by a large ranch. The local ranch manager has been trying to act like a good neighbor when they meet in person but behind the scenes has been working to make life annoying for them for a long time so that they would sell out and leave.

edrxty 3y ago

The FAA needs to stop regulating them as manned aircraft so it's not a felony to down them intentionally

doodlebugging 3y ago
I agree. A drone that stays over someone else's private property is their problem. If it is operated from neighboring property as a device to gather information about me when I am on my property then that changes everything. When it is purposely guided over mine then I should have the option to handle it in any way I deem appropriate. Looking into my back yard, which is enclosed by a fence and is therefore not open for public viewing should be a violation of my privacy.

horsawlarway 3y ago

I think the deciding factor is going to be how we define "observable to the public" now that flying cameras on are the table. My sad guess is that the general rule will change to accept things that can see your property from public airspace as "observable to the public", and that eventually building design and landscaping will change to give you private spaces outdoors if you have money and desire.

doodlebugging 3y ago
This may be how it works out but anyone arguing that an observer flying in an airplane through public airspace has the same opportunity to peer into your private back yard or other areas of your private property is arguing apples and oranges. Most people flying in planes are passengers in transit between two locations with no opportunity to guide the plane to allow them to view specific locations. On the other hand a drone operator has full control of the path the drone takes and can operate it so that it peers into private spaces from public airspace. If a property is marked as private property then that privacy should offer protection from those who would trespass using public airspace.
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  But you can't limit it like this... the airspace is public! So for commercial flights... sure - but there are a whole host of private pilots owners that absolutely can do this. Ex - how do you think news helicopters work? Basically, I'm saying that this phrase > "who would trespass using public airspace" is non-sense. You can't have public space that is being trespassed on. You can apply some limitations (ex: a pilot's license) but many drone pilots already need to be registered anyways. At best, you can argue that there was a clear expectation of privacy (aka: the same argument that prevents you from pointing a telescope at the windows of a private bathroom from public land) and make it illegal after the fact, but I don't really believe that the courts will accept that you have the same expectation of privacy in an outdoor area visible from public space (incl airspace) as you would in a bathroom.

runlevel1 3y ago

I know of a couple related SCOTUS cases on the topic -- both split 5-4: California v. Ciraolo (1985)[1]: > Question: Did the warrantless, aerial observation of Ciraolo's back yard from an altitude of 1,000 feet constitute an illegal search and violate the Fourth Amendment? > Conclusion: The divided Court found that the observation did not violate the Constitution. Chief Justice Burger reasoned that the Fourth Amendment protections regarding the home had never been absolute: for example, police officers are not obligated to shield their eyes when passing homes on public streets or sidewalks. Since the observations of the Santa Clara officers was "nonintrusive" and "took place within public navigable airspace," their actions were consistent with the Fourth Amendment. "Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything that these officers observed," concluded Burger. The dissenters, led by Justice Powell, argued that this decision was a significant departure from the Court's holding in Katz v. United States (1967) which established a two-part test to evaluate privacy claims. Kyllo v. United States (2001)[2]: This case has to do with use of thermal-imaging (without a warrant) to detect if marijuana was being grown inside a house. The court held that it was an unlawful search because it was effectively using technology to peer inside the home without a warrant. While that's not the same as looking into someone's backyard, the opinions have a lot to say about police using technology to erode the privacy of one's home.[3] [1]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1513 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1513 [2]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-8508 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-8508 [3]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opinion-1960955 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opin...

doodlebugging 3y ago
I know there are conflicting rulings. I think both of them need updating to be able to cover trespass and violation of privacy using aerial drones that have many more sensor packages available today.

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago

Can't you just shoot them down? https://www.cnet.com/culture/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-shoot-down-drone-over-his-house/ https://www.cnet.com/culture/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-sh...

doodlebugging 3y ago
After an incident with a drone peering through their window one evening after dusk, one of my close relatives tracked the drone to a neighbor and let that neighbor know that it better not happen again. Then they contacted the sheriff and game warden and reported the drone trespass and they were told that if it happened again they should shoot it down and turn it over for evidentiary analysis and the sheriff would handle it for them. They own land in a rural area that is surrounded by a large ranch. The local ranch manager has been trying to act like a good neighbor when they meet in person but behind the scenes has been working to make life annoying for them for a long time so that they would sell out and leave.