3 ms·

This has a couple different issues involved. Property rights to the air above you and privacy rights. It seems the court agrees that the air above you is a publ

This has a couple different issues involved. Property rights to the air above you and privacy rights. It seems the court agrees that the air above you is a public space. For privacy rights, it uses the example of leaning a ladder against your neighbor's house to spy into it. So it claims that hovering the UAV just outside their window is also a privacy violation. But what about hovering it just outside the window but my side of the fence? What about using a telescope from inside my house to spy into their house? Or standing on the public sidewalk to spy into their house? Does a "peeping tom" need to be on your property to still get in trouble? And if he sees you undressing is it worse than if all he sees is you eating dinner? What about looking into their backyard from my second story balcony? or into their house? The only complication that the drone adds is that is provides you additional vantage points that you didn't have before. But if the air above you is public space, the same rules should probably apply as if you were standing on the sidewalk.

slg 13y ago
I think your logic applies to almost every use of drones. Whether it is our government killing enemy combatants, our local police monitoring speeding, or our slightly creepy neighbor doing who knows what, they aren't exactly new issues. Governments have always killed, police always caught speeders, and neighbor were always slightly creepy. The only difference is that drones allow them to do these things quicker, more efficiently, cheaper, and with less risk. Therefore I don't really think we need new laws in place, we just need to be more mindful of the laws we already have in place.
gwright 13y ago
You seem to be concluding that the same rules should apply based entirely on the notion that consistency with existing laws is the guiding principle yet I suspect that most people would not feel that way. A helicopter passing over at 1000 feet is not the same thing as a helicopter hovering at 50 feet is not the same thing as a drone hovering 5 inches from your window. The law should treat these circumstances differently as I suspect it already does (IANAL).

slg 13y ago

I think your logic applies to almost every use of drones. Whether it is our government killing enemy combatants, our local police monitoring speeding, or our slightly creepy neighbor doing who knows what, they aren't exactly new issues. Governments have always killed, police always caught speeders, and neighbor were always slightly creepy. The only difference is that drones allow them to do these things quicker, more efficiently, cheaper, and with less risk. Therefore I don't really think we need new laws in place, we just need to be more mindful of the laws we already have in place.

gwright 13y ago

You seem to be concluding that the same rules should apply based entirely on the notion that consistency with existing laws is the guiding principle yet I suspect that most people would not feel that way. A helicopter passing over at 1000 feet is not the same thing as a helicopter hovering at 50 feet is not the same thing as a drone hovering 5 inches from your window. The law should treat these circumstances differently as I suspect it already does (IANAL).