4 ms·

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

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.

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.