# Drone v property rights - the privacy issue



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

In an article in the _Washington Post_ we learn:



> William Merideth had just finished grilling dinner for his family when he saw a drone hovering over his land. So he did what he said any Kentuckian might do - he grabbed his Benelli M1 Super 90 shotgun, took aim and unleashed three rounds of birdshot.
> 
> "The only people I've heard anything negative from are liberals that don't want us having guns and people who own drones," said the truck company owner, now a self-described "drone slayer." Downing the quadcopter, which had a camera, was a way to assert his right to privacy and property, he said.
> 
> The drone was owned by John Boggs, a hobbyist, who told authorities he was trying to take pictures of the scenery. He argues in a lawsuit filed this month in U.S. District Court in Louisville that Merideth did not have the right to shoot the craft down because the government controls every inch of airspace in America.


The article covers many of the legal questions and leads one to the conclusion that nobody has really given this much thought.

IMHO hobbyist and commercial drones flying beyond the owner's property should be required to be above 500' except over public lands and public rights-of-way and over land where prior permission has been obtained from the land's owner or tenant. However, that might not solve the privacy problem as cameras that can take sharp pictures of something 1,000 feet away do exist.

But I'm uncomfortable with the idea that if it is over your property you should simply have the right to shoot it down. Somehow birdshot or bullets flying around the neighborhood seem worse than a drone.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Shooting down the drone seems a bit extreme. There certainly is a privacy issue, but it is difficult to enforce. Perhaps with the new lrules covering drones, a means can be found to minimize the problem.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Cholly said:


> Shooting down the drone seems a bit extreme. There certainly is a privacy issue, but it is difficult to enforce. Perhaps with the new lrules covering drones, a means can be found to minimize the problem.
> 
> http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/


I don't have a lot of hope there:



> The FAA says it is part of a White House-ordered effort to develop best practices on privacy with other agencies, think-tanks and drone companies. But these talks will not produce hard and fast rules.


Probably the issue will boil down to a lot of different state and local laws on "trespassing" which will be confusing and then some day the FAA will assert rules on "air space" other than its open from the grass up if it doesn't violate their rules.


----------



## chevyguy559 (Sep 19, 2008)

I was just talking to a buddy of mine about something similar. He was using one of those cheap drones in his neighborhood when all of a sudden it either died or lost communication and ended up on his neighbors roof. She won't allow him to retrieve it from her roof. She states she doesn't want him to mess up the tiles on her roof even though a simple ladder and piece of PVC pipe would be all that's needed and he wouldn't need to go on her roof at all. Its been up there for over a year. He called the local police and they said they won't get involved because its a civil issue. He's not too upset but it still bugs him lol


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

My wife's been practicing with drones in the house, the little $15 ones. I'm waiting for the day she wants a DJI.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

America's newest 'sport' Drone Wars! You fly yours over my house, I'm sending mine up after it! You thought those battlebot gizmos were tough? Wait 'til you see the teeth on mine!


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

New thriller movie. 'Drones of Prey' (not starring David Jansen)


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

"Dronestine" styled after a '58 Plymouth


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

chevyguy559 said:


> I was just talking to a buddy of mine about something similar. He was using one of those cheap drones in his neighborhood when all of a sudden it either died or lost communication and ended up on his neighbors roof. She won't allow him to retrieve it from her roof. She states she doesn't want him to mess up the tiles on her roof even though a simple ladder and piece of PVC pipe would be all that's needed and he wouldn't need to go on her roof at all. Its been up there for over a year. He called the local police and they said they won't get involved because its a civil issue. He's not too upset but it still bugs him lol


If he doesn't have to get on the roof she's stupid. I'd get it when she wasn't home.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> If he doesn't have to get on the roof she's stupid. I'd get it when she wasn't home.


Cool, then she can have you arrested for trespassing.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I wonder if her name is Rita DelVecchio.

My inlaws have certainly been forced into arbitration for much stupider things that go onto their neighbors property.


----------



## chevyguy559 (Sep 19, 2008)

From what he told me she is a older lady that NEVER leaves the house haha


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Most of the zoning laws across the nation will need to be updated regarding a property air space.

Most home owners will insist on thousands of feet, but I expect it will around a hundred feet.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Most of the zoning laws across the nation will need to be updated regarding a property air space.
> 
> Most home owners will insist on thousands of feet, but I expect it will around a hundred feet.


I have a co-worker that gets mad when ISS invades his property space. He says he doesn't recognize the International treaties.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Drucifer said:


> Most of the zoning laws across the nation will need to be updated regarding a property air space.
> 
> Most home owners will insist on thousands of feet, but I expect it will around a hundred feet.


The FAA defines it as 500ft or 1000ft for aircraft:

500 ft rule
An aircraft must maintain an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

1000 ft rule
An aircraft must maintain an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.

Some aircraft are allowed to fly closer to the ground.

These rules would make a good MAXIMUM height for drones ... which would provide separation between aircraft and drones. Obviously planes can be closer to the ground when taking off or landing - and drone separation needs to be provided near airports and other places aircraft will be operating close to the ground.

Aircraft separation seems to be a more important issue to the FAA than privacy. They would rather give the low airspace to drones than force them to higher altitudes.

Public air space is classified as the 'navigable' airspace 500 feet AGL (Above Ground Level) so anything above 500ft is public but also conflicting with aircraft.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> The FAA defines it as 500ft or 1000ft for aircraft:
> 
> 500 ft rule
> An aircraft must maintain an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
> ...


I guess the critical question for the FAA is: Are drones "aircraft" under the rules? Anyway....

The long term privacy trigger issue for me isn't some fool neighbor flying a drone but rather commercial use drones flown by Amazon and the like.

Those drones will have video cameras, good ones. If they zip around in airspace at the 200'-499' above ground level it is going to turn out to be like Google Street View only far, far worse. The video won't be made public systematically like Street View where people could protest. The "flight crew" - who are people - won't be able resist posting amusing things on YouTube (or other sites). And...

If Amazon et al. fly regularly over the town, that video can be used to record and analyze patterns of human behavior. It will just be more information for businesses to use for their own benefit, including selling the information.

The take-away from the Apple "1984 Video"...










...ought to have been "_fear intrusive government, but fear more the private sector_."

Not that the private sector activity won't create a more intrusive government. Just because "big brother" won't be allowed to fly drones around all day everywhere to video the activities of all Americans shouldn't make us comfortable.

Keep in mind that right now while investigating a crime, law enforcement can check all the street-view video cameras in a neighborhood and, of course, video posted on line by every mindless soul with an iPhone (to stick to the Apple example).

Now they will be able to check videos from commercial drones. Sure it will be viewed looking for activity related to a specific crime. But other stuff on the video will start appearing on YouTube because the police employees viewing the video are people too.

And this isn't the thread to go into the implications of self-driving vehicles....


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I read a similar story a while back (might even be this same story). The drone was flying over the backyard while the homeowners daughter and a friend were outside sunbathing. The girls came in and got the father and he went outside with a shotgun and took it down.

Edit/

Yeah, looks like the same story:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/30/william-merideth-arrested-after-shooting-down-1800/


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Tough to say here. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of people being able to fly things over your yard, whether they have a camera on them or a weapon or not. On the other hand, I'm leery of encouraging/supporting shooting them down as that has unintended consequences sometimes.

Take the drone aspect out of it... your neighbor wouldn't have the right to take pictures of your kids while leaning over your fence to do so... but you wouldn't have the right to shoot him for doing it. I'd be okay with taking a bat to the drone, though... or if you could safely throw something at it that wouldn't fall and harm someone else. But shooting at it... IF you miss, you could shoot something you didn't mean to shoot... and even with a hit, your bullet might continue and still hit something else.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> ... your neighbor wouldn't have the right to take pictures of your kids while leaning over your fence to do so...


Maybe. It all depends on what the state considers a "reasonable expectation of privacy". I remember a few years ago when "upskirt" photos were being taken by perverts and it turned out that the laws were too weak to make it illegal.

A neighbor's drone does not even need to be over anyone elses property to see over fences. The neighbor may be able to get the same effect looking out of an upstairs window or with an outdoor security camera mounted high enough.

While morally I will side with those seeking privacy in their own yards, the law may not be on their side.

("Leaning over" the fence would put you in your neighbor's air space - if it were a property line or your neighbor's fence with a setback.)


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

chevyguy559 said:


> I was just talking to a buddy of mine about something similar. He was using one of those cheap drones in his neighborhood when all of a sudden it either died or lost communication and ended up on his neighbors roof. She won't allow him to retrieve it from her roof. She states she doesn't want him to mess up the tiles on her roof even though a simple ladder and piece of PVC pipe would be all that's needed and he wouldn't need to go on her roof at all. Its been up there for over a year. He called the local police and they said they won't get involved because its a civil issue. He's not too upset but it still bugs him lol


He could try using a second drone to grab it with a hook and take it off the roof.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

jerry downing said:


> He could try using a second drone to grab it with a hook and take it off the roof.


I think most of us here can see where this is going... :coffee


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

As long as I get my Amazon Air shipments, I'm happy


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Maybe. It all depends on what the state considers a "reasonable expectation of privacy". I remember a few years ago when "upskirt" photos were being taken by perverts and it turned out that the laws were too weak to make it illegal.
> 
> A neighbor's drone does not even need to be over anyone elses property to see over fences. The neighbor may be able to get the same effect looking out of an upstairs window or with an outdoor security camera mounted high enough.
> 
> ...


Yeah... that's why I specifically put the "leaning over the fence" part in there. You're right, "peeping" can be accomplished while being legally in the public street or sidewalk or from your own home if you live within line-of-sight. And while that is still creepy and morally questionable, it usually isn't illegal if you're doing the "peeping" from a legal location. In those cases, you can't do a whole lot usually according to the law.

I haven't heard about people shooting down drones that weren't hovering over their property though... so I was targeting that narrow window of a scenario where legally you have grounds to protect yourself and your property, but I'm not sure you can (or should) just do anything you want. Like, you could beat a guy up who you find peeping in your windows... but I'm not sure you can just kill the guy in all cases without raising some eyebrows within the law.


----------



## jerry downing (Mar 7, 2004)

Nick said:


> I think most of us here can see where this is going... :coffee


Then he would get a third dro.........


----------



## Eva (Nov 8, 2013)

I got one of those drones for xmas. It's a blast as I'll tease my cat with it. I'm very cautious where it goes and keep it within our property lines. We only have 2 neighbours and told them about it since we're on friendly terms. Frond out one got a drone too and the other asked if I can come over and use it to video his roof, which he just had redone and think they did shoddy work and wanted to document it.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Neighbors! You never know which ones have paranoria issues until something weird happens.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Neighbors! You never know which ones have paranoria issues until something weird happens.


Absolutely. The issue my inlaws had I alluded to was when a neighbor was upset that a tree in their yard caused leaves to end up in his yard. He made them go to arbitration in an attempt to require that they cut it down.

Needless to say, the arbitration did not end up how he wanted it to.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Our neighbor had an avocado tree that overhung our driveway. I figured anything that fell off the tree was our property. No need to have him cut it down.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Now we have the tethered drone from CyPhy Works as explained in *this TechRepublic story*:



> ...The Persistent Aerial Reconnaissance and Communications, (PARC), has a unique feature: a tether.
> 
> The 400-foot tether connects UAVs to a control base with a fishing line-like microfilament they call "superfine." The company says the line is "impervious to jamming and unaffected by water, power lines, and other possible interferences."
> 
> ...


While the discussion is about military uses, it won't be long before police departments figure out this device works. And then comes your very rich neighbor.... :grin:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Unaffected by power lines is a limited statement. One would not want a 400ft tether around a power line.

I like the concept of not losing the drone and having longer flight time - but snagging that tether on power wires, trees, buildings, etc. and trying to unsnag the tether would not be trivial.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I hope the tether is biodegradable -- I lost plenty of kites as a kid on much more than 400 feet of string.

At least you'll know where the drone is but you still may not be able to recover it.


----------

