Slashdot Mirror
Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses
Fubar writes: Two city council members from Phoenix, AZ are introducing "draft language" for public discussion that would make it illegal to use a drone to film people without their knowledge. The council members are worred about privacy of people in their own yards, even including the requirement that law enforcement obtain a warrant for drone surveillance. A violation of the ordinance would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries up to a $2,500 fine and six months in jail.
From TFA
Two City Council members today will unveil a draft ordinance that would make it a crime to use a drone to film, audiotape or photograph people on their private property without their consent.
Which basically goes against well established photography law that basically says if you can see it from a public location then its fair game.
OTOH I'm not sure how you can reasonably legislate pics taken from drones. Do you now define a private location to include the airspace above it? But what if I am in public airspace, yet high enough to see over a wall?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
B) that's pretty much the meaning of the proposed law, isn't it?
In my opinion people should have some privacy in their yard -- less, maybe, than indoors but still more than none. I welcome laws giving me some rights in that area.
A) it does, since it applies to taking photos. You can't really take a photo without a camera, can you?
B) Depends on how you try to protect it. In most locations, an attempt to be private means its private. I.E. a privacy fence means you have an expectation of privacy. Having sex in a public park doesn't count, but in your hot tub with a fence around that a normal person can't see over and you should be able to assume your actions are private.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The law will use the word 'consent', not 'knowledge' Don't assume shitty slashdot summaries are ever going to be written into law.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Do people legally have privacy in an uncovered yard? I don't think they do. I'm talk about legal, not rudeness.
In the book The Law (In Plain English) For Photographers (ISBN 978-1-58115-712-3), attorney Tad Williams discusses the right of privacy as it applies to photographers. Two cases in point are mentioned: Dietemann v. Time, Inc. (284 F. Supp. 925, 1968) and Galella v. Onassis (487 F.2d 986, 1973). Those are the two cases most often cited as examples of the tort of "intrusion on one's seclusion", and are the basis of the doctrine of "reasonable expectation of privacy on one's own property". (I leave the review of those cases as an exercise for the student.)
The general rule of thumb for photographers is that if it can be seen from a public place, it can be photographed from a public place, UNLESS the subject being photographed is on their private property. Keeping in mind that anyone can be sued for anything at any time, it's best that a quadcopter operator err on the side of caution and make sure to NOT fly their aircraft in a manner that could be construed as attempting to make photographs of persons on private property without consent.
Of course, it may require a few people having their expensive quadcopters blown out of the air by a well-placed shotgun round to get that message across.
DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney and am not qualified to give legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney with experience in the subject matter for definitive legal advice regarding a particular situation. I am, however, a photographer, and make it a point to keep up with laws and ordinances that affect my enjoyment of the hobby of photography.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
B) Do people legally have privacy in an uncovered yard? I don't think they do. I'm talk about legal, not rudeness.
In my state, the answer is Very Definitely Hell Yes.
It is strictly illegal for anybody (including law enforcement without a warrant) to use ANY means to view something on your property that isn't clearly visible to a common pedestrian or vehicle going past. That means, for example, that it's illegal for anybody (including police) to so much as use a stepladder to see over your back fence. It is termed "illegal surveillance" and the law was in place long before drones existed.
It's even illegal to stare in my front window from the sidewalk, or with binoculars, even if my curtains are open. Same law. You can look in as you go past, of course. But you can't "watch" for a long time.
well, I can see my neighbors back yard from my deck. People who live o hills have plain sight of all the backyards below them, etc.
Are you seriously saying I can't take a picture from my back deck?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm all for banning use of drones and other means of specifically filming someone in their own backyard without their knowledge. On the other hand, in the not too distant future we might have drones delivering packages to peoples' homes, searching for lost people and/or pets, or doing some other useful stuff, where cameras may be helpful for navigating around obstacles etc. Filming should be allowed for such purposes, but heavy penalties should be placed on storing, distributing or otherwise misusing such footage without a valid reason.
Will the US need to get warrants to take satellite photos of Phoenix? What about taking an aerial photo of my neighborhood from a real plane (say, 2500 feet up)? A helicopter from 1000 feet?
What makes a drone unique, other than the presumed better resolution provided by presumed shorter distances?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Sure, if you want to be a creeper.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai