Kentucky's Shotgun 'Drone Slayer' Gets Sued Again (yahoo.com)

"Technology has surpassed the law..." argues a Kentucky man who fired a shotgun at a drone last year. An anonymous Slashdot reader reports: The drone's owner has now filed for damages in Federal Court over the loss of his $1,800 drone, arguing that the shotgun blast was unjustified because his drone wasn't actually trespassing or invading anyone's privacy. The defendant -- who has dubbed himself 'the Drone Slayer' -- said the aerial vehicle was over his garden and his daughter, and the verdict could ultimately set a new precedent in U.S. law: who owns the air?

"Operators need to know where they can fly," argued the drone pilot's lawyer, "and owners must know when they can reasonably expect privacy and be free of prying eyes." He estimates a drone is shot from he skies about once a month, and "What happens typically is that law enforcement doesn't know what to do and civil suits are uncommon as most people don't want to get involved due to the costs."
The Drone Slayer was originally charged with felony counts of wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. But all of those charges were dismissed in October when a district judge ruled he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft."

Comments

Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if the drone is vertically close enough to your private property that you CAN succesfully shoot it, then its too close and doing so is allowed. (Excluding sniper rifles)

Re: Rule of thumb

[Entrope]

I'd go with something like: If the drone flew over private property without permission before, there's a presumption that it will fly over your property whenever it heads in the direction of your property. The property in the first case doesn't have to be your own -- it could belong to a neighbor who told you they hate drones and would never allow overflight.

Re: Rule of thumb

[hey!]

That rule of thumb seems excessively restrictive to drones. What if the drone pilot has permission to fly over your neighbor's property?

Re: Rule of thumb

[Entrope]

Then my rule of thumb doesn't apply to the drone flying over that neighbor's property.

Re:Rule of thumb

[Pascoea]

So I can sit at my property line and shoot at drones in the park next to my house? Yeah, there may be a few holes in your logic. I mean, most good bird hunters could pick off a drone at 50+ yards.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

While I personally agree with you and the Drone Slayer....Amazon / UPS would disagree since they want to deliver pizzas and other bullshit via drone.

Re: Rule of thumb

[angel'o'sphere]

Then the neighbour obviously knows about the fact that he gave permission and most likely would restrain himself from shooting down the drone ...

Re: Rule of thumb

[ScentCone]

There are places for people to fly drones. A neighbor's property isn't one of them.

Why? What if the neighbor not only permits it, but encourages it? What if the neighbor has asked you to photograph her gutters or her chimney before she calls a roofing guy to come out and climb up for a look? What business is it of yours if your neighbor is just fine with it? Perhaps your neighbor doesn't think you should be allowed to go use your lawn mower to cut some OTHER person's lawn. Should they be able to stop you? No? I see.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! is talking about a specific scenario, where the person flying the drone has permission - and there are plenty of circumstances where this can happen. Is reading really that difficult?

Re:Rule of thumb

[reboot246]

Drone operators need to be very careful. Shotguns work on people, too.

Re: Rule of thumb

[I'm New Around Here]

There are places for people to fly drones. A neighbor's property isn't one of them.

Why? What if the neighbor not only permits it, but encourages it?

It seems the scenario being talked about is a drone operator flying his/her drone over several properties in a neighborhood. A scenic tour, you might say. Your example of a homeowner having said operator perform a specific function over her own house, and limiting it to that specific place and time, doesn't follow the example.

Re:Rule of thumb

[I'm New Around Here]

Blind idiocy runs deep in your family, I take it.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

If your lawn-mowing was an causing issue to anyone else, which is possible, then there is some consideration to the idea that you should be stopped. Whether your lawn, or your neighbor's.

Re: Rule of thumb

[unixisc]

Brings up an interesting question - if you own a piece of property, do you own the airspace above it? If so, how much? Right up to the ionosphere?

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

A pizza drone is a pro tool for making money, you expect it to be more regulated than a "fun" drone.

They may fly out pizza by flying over the road network. People can opt-in for overflight, getting the 5% rebate coupon...

Re: Rule of thumb

[Pascoea]

So, I'm replying to a comment saying "if it's close enough to hit it from my property with anything but a sniper rifle, I'm free to shoot it" but I'm the idiot for pointing out that there might be cases where that comment doesn't make sense? Can't say I follow your logic.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Pascoea]

Yeah, disregard, missed the "vertically" part of the comment. Wouldn't that have been easier to point out than resorting to third grade name calling?

Re:Rule of thumb

[BlueStrat]

Drone operators need to be very careful. Shotguns work on people, too.

Drone shooters need to be very careful. Shotguns (and other nasty surprises) can be attached to drones, too.

I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment/private firearm ownership and castle doctrine believer, but can't we take a damned breath and give laws and regulations a chance to catch up before shooting at shit that poses no serious direct threat of personal harm?

Look, I get there may be some cases where discharging a firearm against a drone might be justified, but holy crap! People act like they're ready to set emplacements for AAA for some idiot that let his drone wander too far because idiot!

Get a grip already! Before somebody loses an eye!

Strat

Re: Rule of thumb

[ShanghaiBill]

A pizza drone is a pro tool for making money, you expect it to be more regulated than a "fun" drone.

No, you should not expect that. Drones should be regulated based on size, location, method of control (line-of-sight or not), and payload (camera, machinegun, etc.). Whether the pilot is a "hobbyist" or a guy trying to support his family is irrelevant. "Profit" doesn't make it any more or less dangerous.

Re: Rule of thumb

[ShanghaiBill]

A neighbor's property isn't one of them.

My neighbor's kid has a quadcopter drone, and it crashes in my backyard occasionally. I don't mind at all. It is just kids having fun.

Re: Rule of thumb

[ShanghaiBill]

if you own a piece of property, do you own the airspace above it?

The FAA allows aircraft to fly over your property without your permission as long as they maintain a minimum altitude. Over congested areas, I think the minimum is 1000 ft (300m) above ground level.

Re:Rule of thumb

[David_Hart]

This article is about a proposed drone operation law in California. The law is poorly written, but the author of the article has, what I think, is a good compromise. He suggests that drones should be able to operate at between 350 and 500 feet over private property. Anything below 350 feet, without authorization, is fair game for the shotgun crowd. The graphic depicting this is at the bottom of the article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gr...

Re:Rule of thumb

[Solandri]

It depends on the local ordinances. Several jurisdictions (usually ones where lots of celebrities live) have made it illegal to deliberately peer over high fences or vegetation added for the purpose of privacy. These laws were made to thwart paparazzi who would get onto ladders or helicopters to shoot photos of people on private property. In that case, flying a drone over your own property could be considered illegal if it were for the purpose of peering over the privacy barrier.

Re: Rule of thumb

[prisoner-of-enigma]

It is just kids having fun.

I wonder how you'd feel if someone parked a drone over your back yard with a camera watching your comings and goings, what time you went to bed and woke up, what kind of property you leave out, who visits your house and when, how many kids you have and what ages they are, and so forth. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Someone WILL eventually do that, most likely a LOT of someones, because there are some fucked up people in this world. A law that says it's perfectly alright for someone to fly a drone in close proximity to your home would enable this exact behavior.

And please don't go with the "so what, I have nothing to hide" defense. Even if you didn't mind a private citizen doing it, I'm willing to bet you'd be out of your mind upset if the government did it. If it's not good for one to be doing it, it's not good for either to be doing it.

Re:Rule of thumb

[goose-incarnated]

Yeah I wouldn't worry about this - a court already found that "[the shooter[ had a right to shoot at the drone". how is the drone operator going to interpret the previous ruling? That the shooter can shoot at, but he must miss?

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you must be ok with free speech being limited to the printing press and not being applied to the Internet.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Pentium100]

And yet, pilot licenses have different rules based on whether you make money from flying the airplane.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Osgeld]

Same with driving as well

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

But I print out the Internet every day.

Re:Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

The "well regulated militia" argument has been thoroughly debunked by others (e.g. "A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed"), but even so according to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... roughly 40% of the entire US population is already in the militia by definition.

Re:Rule of thumb

[Woldscum]

Please educate yourself.

"Regulated" as in well trained. Not as in governed by laws. A "well trained militia".

The 4th definition of "Regulated".
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

"Militia" = All able bodied males 18 to 45 years of age.

This is what makes the Selective Service and Draft are legal. Every male 18 to 45 IS the militia.

SO this is how the law sees it.

"Males aged 18 to 45 well trained in using guns, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Re: Rule of thumb

[ScentCone]

People fly recreational and commercial aircraft right over your house every day of the year.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

So no one has a problem with their neighbor shooting a gun off at drones in a residential area? :)
That in itself seems a much scarier and argument-worthy point.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I said vertically above your property. If the drone is above your neighbors house, then its their job to shoot it or not

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones should be regulated based on size, location, method of control (line-of-sight or not), and payload (camera, machinegun, etc.). Whether the pilot is a "hobbyist" or a guy trying to support his family is irrelevant. "Profit" doesn't make it any more or less dangerous.

How about we regulate on ALL of those dimensions?

Profit certainly makes it less LIKELY to be dangerous - if I do something for profit, I probably spend the time to make sure my drones aren't crashing into people's houses, cars, and heads... and I probably have a maintenance program to ensure that my drones are flight-worthy. A hobbyist who doesn't depend on the drone for his living probably doesn't care as much about maintenance, or insurance.

All of the dimensions you listed are legitimate reasons for regulating drones; if you intend to make profit from them, you should have insurance to cover damage you may do to other people's property; If you intend to make profit from them, you should be expected to properly maintain your drones to keep them airworthy.

Why wouldn't you expect this?

Re: Rule of thumb

[I'm New Around Here]

Hey, that was at least fifth grade taunting. Or I'm just getting old. ;^)

I just assumed you saw the "vertically" and made a smartass comment about firing out over other people's property, or over the park next door.

This topic seems to bring out the snark in everybody. No hard feelings here.

Re: Rule of thumb

[ruir]

It seems in this case it was just a pervert looking at the wife and/or teenage daughter bathing in the sun by the pool, as far as I recall from the original news.

Re: Rule of thumb

[I'm New Around Here]

Not within shotgun range, they don't.

Re: Rule of thumb

[ScentCone]

Doesn't matter. The FAA doesn't take shotgun range, or high-powered-rifle-range into account when they say it's illegal to discharge a firearm at an aircraft.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Aereus]

What happens when a wind gust blows the pizza drone laterally over someone's front yard?

Re: Rule of thumb

[Aereus]

You sure about that? An ultralight doesn't need to file a flightplan, and those don't fly very high at all.

Re:Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if the drone is vertically close enough to your private property that you CAN succesfully shoot it, then its too close and doing so is allowed. (Excluding sniper rifles)

Obviously not written by somebody with experience shooting. "Sniper rifles" aren't great for shooting small, rapidly moving targets, particularly close ones, because their rate of traverse is very fast. If you're trying to use a scope, good luck, because it won't stay in your view for long.

You want to use a shot gun, firing shot (which is why these are the guns used for bird hunting and skeet shooting.) You essentially want to be moving and leading the target as you fire, essentially "splashing" your shot over a wider area, increasing the chances that a few will hit the target.

Also, by your proposed standard, you'd be allowed to shoot down drones that are across the street, on your neighbor's property... in his back yard. If you can hit a flying target from 100 feet away, you'd be consider fairly competent... for a novice... with one eye.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK, if you hold a 'permission' (it isn't a licence, more a sort of registration of intent that lasts 12 months) from the CAA, you can fly over multiple properties unrestricted and without needing to give warning. The same rules regarding distance apply which is sane (500m distance, 400ft height - yes I know, mixed units). The most likely use of this is home-owners who are going the extra mile to provide aerial video or photography of a home before putting it up for sale.

Luckily the UK doesn't have crazy gun-laws like the US, otherwise I would've been shot down tens of times by now.

Re: Rule of thumb

[I'm New Around Here]

Ultralights don't fly over my house every day.

Local 'mosquito control' helicopters fly over every week or so. But not daily, as the post I responded to originally stated.

Re:Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a drone armed with a gun would be considered a man trap in the eyes of the law.

Re:Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that your property rights should include a certain height above the ground as well. You don't get to shoot down passenger jets that fly over your property so there is some set limit already. Just like how most people don't own the mineral rights to their own property. In fact you don't really "own" any land in the US, just the rights to use it for certain purposes. If you don't believe me then stop paying your property tax or try to open a retail store on your property and see what happens.

Re: Rule of thumb

[opentunings]

They may fly out pizza by flying over the road network.

I doubt that they'd use the road network. They'd probably prefer to use the Food Network.

Re:Rule of thumb

[Agripa]

Exactly. Shotguns using birdshot are only effective at short ranges. If you manage to a shoot down a drone with one and it lands on your property, then it was too close. Consider it a modern version of the cannon shot rule. Local ordinances might prevent even using a shotgun though which has nothing to do with this.

As far as using rifles or pistols to shoot down a drone, that is both more dangerous and very few people could do it anyway. Offhand the only person I can think of would be John Ross.

Re:Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

The shooter has a right to shoot in the sense that he shouldn't be criminally liable for it. Doesn't mean he isn't liable for damages. There are plenty of precedents for that in law. A basic case you learn in torts is about the doctrine of necessity in trespassing cases. If you need to tie your boat to a private dock, or break into an unoccupied house, in order to seek shelter from a storm and prevent harm to you and your property, you're legally allowed to do so, and the property owner may even be criminally or civilly liable for preventing you from doing so by force. HOWEVER, you still have to pay him for damaging his dock or his cabin, and he can sue you to collect.

The wannabe tough guy in this case was charged with a law that was basically designed to punish guys who randomly fire off guns in populated areas in order to intimidate people, or because he's just stupid and indifferent to human life. The judge said the guy had a right to shoot at the drone in the context of that law, which essentially means he had a legitimate enough reason to shoot that the law shouldn't punish him criminally.

A felony conviction is a serious thing, so the law generally feels people shouldn't get one unless you have serious proof they did something seriously bad. Tort law is less serious. It's all about making sure people get compensated for harm caused when people act unreasonably. Being unreasonable doesn't necessarily mean being criminal, or being seriously bad. Being forced to pay to fix a guy's car or drone isn't as serious a punishment as going to jail, and coming out having permanently lost quite a few civil rights. So the standards of conduct, and the standards of proof, are quite different.

Re:Rule of thumb

[david_thornley]

I have been a member of the unorganized militia, being male in reasonable health most of the time, and am no longer in it since I'm over 45. I'm not that fond of guns, and never got training with one. I've never had any sort of military training. Any militia with people like me in it is not going to be "well-regulated". I do want to have all my Constitutional rights, even the ones I don't care about in practice (nobody has ever tried to quarter troops on the homes of anyone I know, for example).

Re: Rule of thumb

[ScentCone]

Really? No domestic or international commercial air traffic flies over your house? Where do you live that there's no such air traffic. That would be refreshing, I must say. Around here, we see and or hear hundreds of flights a day. The lower altitude stuff is not as common, but there's really no distinction from an FAA perspective.

Re:Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Please educate yourself.

Please stop falling into the "but the Amendment says 'well regulated'" trap. It is completely irrelevant to what the amendment is protecting. The amendment could say "Because the sky is purple", and it would not change the amendment one lick.

Re: Rule of thumb

[BiggyDingus]

I absolutely agree with the rationale of your argument. Since in theory "profit" vs. non-profit doesn't change anything, it wouldn't seem to make sense to differentiate between the two when it comes to the law. In practice, we have many laws that regulate businesses more than similar, non-profit activities, for two reasons. 1) There is a legal theory that when someone goes into business to make profit, it's reasonable to expect them to learn regulations and engage in compliance/reporting measures that would be unreasonable to impose on the entire population. For example, licensed firearms dealers are expected to learn the background check rules and to comply with them, and to explain to customers how to comply with them during sales, but it's far less reasonable to expect everyone who ever wants to buy a gun to learn every ATF regulation, make sure they're complying with them when they purchase a gun, with zero help from the dealer, and to avoid even accidentally breaking any rules lest the ATF come knocking later. 2) In many activities, doing it for business involves doing it at a scale that is orders of magnitude higher than people doing it for fun, and involves a much greater risk or impact. It's why in many places, recreational fishermen are basically told to buy a license, throw back anything smaller than this, and don't walk away with more than this many fish in a day, while commercial operations are required to follow strict and complex quotas (sometimes changing dynamically season to season based on fishery health) and must comply with reporting and inspection requirements (rather than more or less relying on the honor system like those with recreational licenses.) Drones present a possible danger, as well as a novel and unexpected way to break existing laws, so some minimal new safety laws, as well as tweaks to old laws to account for the new technology, will probably be needed to regulate everyone. However, I wouldn't be surprised (or particularly offended) if there winds up being a second, stricter set of registration requirements or other laws specifically for drone use for profit, or for drone fleets above a certain size operated by a single entity.

Re: Rule of thumb

[BiggyDingus]

According to apparently half the people in this thread, you get to shoot it down the moment crosses your airspace, and loot the pizza from the crash site. According to a slightly smaller number of people, you don't even have to wait for it to get over your property, as long as it's withing "shotgun but not a sniper rifle range."

Re: Rule of thumb

[BiggyDingus]

A law that says it's perfectly alright for someone to fly a drone in close proximity to your home would enable this exact behavior.

First, let's define terms. I am against people flying drones at low altitude vertically above your property. Iff this is what you mean by "close proximity," you can a) disregard the rest of my response and b) disregard your own comment, because the law already prohibits this. Yes, there's some uncertainty over precisely how high the ceiling of your airspace is, but most agree that it's more than a hundred yards or so... and in practical, trigonometric terms, being 100 yards above your property, and being 100 yards above public property adjacent to yours doesn't make a difference in terms of privacy. If, however, by "close proximity" you are arguing some sort of right to police airspace that isn't actually yours to control by any theory of property rights, I disagree with you strongly. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence shows no right to privacy from above unless you take steps to protect that privacy (by being indoors or under a canopy.) If you take steps to ensure partial outdoor privacy (such as a high fence), you only have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the extent that people can't break laws to circumvent your steps (i.e., trespass on your property to climb a nearby tree to spy on you.) The law recognizes no reasonable expectation of privacy from neighbors at a third story window, low flying planes, or surveillance satellites. As for people "parking a drone" and watching you from a position they're legally allowed to occupy, the law ALREADY enables this behavior with non-drones. The law generally allows people to walk where they want on public property and drive where they want on public roads, regardless of whether somebody feels uncomfortable about the fact that you can see who is entering and leaving their house, regardless of whether they're going somewhere quickly, taking the scenic route, or hanging out. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence agrees there is no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to what you can see from a public space--it's why police don't need warrants to stake out a private residence in plain view. In some places there are laws that deal with extremely unreasonable behavior (anti-stalking laws.) Anti-loitering laws also allow the police to shoo someone away for being a nuisance, but these are highly limited in scope and effect. I love your signature quote: "It's a liberty issue. I'd rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices." Very libertarian. My favorite is, "Rarely does good law come from somebody saying 'there oughta be a law.'" I completely understand the harm you're worried about, but before proposing a new law with no regard to individual liberties and the practicality of enforcement, you should ask yourself a few things. 1) Are there existing laws that bar the kind of harm you're concerned about? 2) Are these laws inherently ineffective, or ineffective because law enforcement and the public haven't figured out how to apply them to new circumstances or technology? 3) Can these laws made effective through minor changes to the law, or training police, or other minor fixes? 4) If after asking 1-3, you conclude you absolutely need a new law, is that law the least restrictive means to achieve your goal? Are you penalizing only people engaged causing the harm you fear, or are you trading away the freedom of an entire group of people because that's the lazy, easy way to control a small subset of them?

Re: Rule of thumb

[Swave An deBwoner]

Then the dog gets the pizza. Let's hope it isn't hot enough to burn the poor dog's mouth or the pizza shop is getting sued.

Re: Rule of thumb

[I'm New Around Here]

Me: "Ultralights don't fly over my house every day."

You: "Really? No domestic or international commercial air traffic flies over your house? "

I didn't know international flights use ultralights.

Re: Rule of thumb

[ScentCone]

We're talking about the fact that AIRCRAFT fly over people's houses all day, every day. Focusing on only one type of aircraft isn't meaningful (from an FAA perspective).

Re:Rule of thumb

[BlueStrat]

I have been a member of the unorganized militia, being male in reasonable health most of the time, and am no longer in it since I'm over 45. I'm not that fond of guns, and never got training with one. I've never had any sort of military training. Any militia with people like me in it is not going to be "well-regulated". I do want to have all my Constitutional rights, even the ones I don't care about in practice (nobody has ever tried to quarter troops on the homes of anyone I know, for example).

People forget that personal rights come with personal responsibilities, one of which being called to serve in the unorganized militia (if one fits stated criteria to serve, age, etc) and fight in combat if required to do so. It is compulsory. Refusal during wartime (only scenario where the UOM would be activated and this would apply in) could result in immediate execution or imprisonment.

Nobody requires you to own a firearm. However, you may still be called to serve. If nobody has a spare firearm and ammo to lend you, you may find yourself charging a defended position as the 'meatshield'.

Choose wisely.

Strat

Re: Rule of thumb

[BiggyDingus]

It seems in this case it was just a pervert looking at the wife and/or teenage daughter bathing in the sun by the pool, as far as I recall from the original news.

I don't think you're correct. According to the cnet article and others, two human witnesses (the shooter and presumably his daughter) claimed that the drone was flying below the tree line "peeping." The owner, however, presented the telemetry from the drone itself which indicated that the drone was higher than claimed when shot down. At the trial level, the court apparently believed the data over the human witnesses--who obviously had incentive to paint a picture a certain way.

What is striking to me is that in making the ruling it did, the appellate court explicitly made a finding of fact that the drone was peeping. This is interesting because an appeals court is only supposed to nitpick a lower court's findings of law unless a high standard of error is met--and even then, it often sends the case back to trial to correct the flawed findings of fact. The appeals court sounds old school--highly over valuing eye witness testimony, and apparently finding something to question about the data evidence, presumably without the benefit of calling more expert witnesses to give a reason for that conclusion. I haven't had a chance to look at the opinion or the trial transcript too closely, but my first reaction is that the judge had a hinky gut feeling about drones or just had sympathy for the shooter, and in her haste to get him off she forgot a bit her role as an appellate judge.

So technically, the appeals court said he was a peeper. In practice, the ruling is extremely irregular. Generally, an appeals court can only rule based on the record--essentially, the opinion and the transcript of the lower court case. Unless it's a very clear case of factual error by the lower court, the appeals court won't accept new evidence or try to make a factual finding itself--it will instead send the case back down, with instructions to the lower court to admit new evidence and to fix whatever procedural errors it made that tainted its original findings.

Because of these circumstances, my informed legal opinion is that the appeals court pulled it out of its ass. I'm inclined to believe the drone-operator's non-peeping version of events unless it's revealed later that there is new evidence (somehow not on the record and inexplicably ignored by the lower court) that the drone operator doctored the data somehow, or that the shooter is a fae-being who is magically prevented from telling lies.

Re: Rule of thumb

[ruir]

You are not the first talking about the flight data. Until which point can it be manipulated? As far as I recall the shooter also used a shotgun with lead for birds, which has a rather limited range. (...) We could concede both sides are a bit sketchy in their arguments.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody gives a shit about your opinion of our gun laws.

Re:Rule of thumb

[david_thornley]

Huh? When you go into the Army, they make sure that you have a rifle and know how to use it when you need one. They don't rely on you having a gun and knowing how to use it.

If I'm not in uniform and subject to military discipline, and not carrying a weapon, I'm not covered by the Hague Conventions, and any fighting I do against any enemy is illegal anyway. Anyone in the military who forces me to fight in such circumstances is committing a war crime.

You are permitted to fight on your own before the US Armed Forces intervene, provided you carry arms openly and fight according to the laws of war (more or less; nobody follows them strictly). Once the Army shows up, it can presumably draft you and issue you a uniform, but it's not going to be real happy about new recruits fighting with nonstandard weapons.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

These are not "AIRCRAFT" as you put it. They are toys, being used irresponsibly. In many cases intentionally invading privacy.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

if you own a piece of property, do you own the airspace above it?

The FAA allows aircraft to fly over your property without your permission as long as they maintain a minimum altitude. Over congested areas, I think the minimum is 1000 ft (300m) above ground level.

1. Which would be far outside of shotgun range.

2. These toys are prohibited from flying that high by FAA regulations.

Re: Rule of thumb

[I'm New Around Here]

Please review the following conversation.

ScentCone: People fly recreational and commercial aircraft right over your house every day of the year.
I'm New: .... Not within shotgun range, they don't.
Aereus: ..... You sure about that? An ultralight doesn't need to file a flightplan, and those don't fly very high at all.
I'm New: .... Ultralights don't fly over my house every day.
ScentCone: Really? No domestic or international commercial air traffic flies over your house?
I'm New: .... I didn't know international flights use ultralights.

I'm not the one who focused on ultralights.

Re: Rule of thumb

[Coren22]

Using birdshot? No. It can't do enough damage unless they are pointing it at you directly and you are quite close. It is used for shooting down birds for a reason. Both the guy in this story, and the other recent little old lady used birdshot which is designed to fall harmlessly due to its mass to surface area ratio.

Re:Rule of thumb

[Coren22]

To expand on Woldscum's comment, at the time of drafting, personally owned firearms were much better than the military level technology in use. The military didn't have rifled barrels, while many private parties did, also, the majority of cannon used in the revolutionary war was privately owned. The supreme court has held that the second amendment was meant to allow private parties to own the equivalent of what the military owns. So, the current laws, according to the supreme court, that outlaw "assault weapons" or automatic weapons, are actually unconstitutional. For some reason they were not struck down, as in the case that the ruling was on, the defendant had been murdered by the mob already, and the ruling was that a short barreled shotgun was not used by the military, which was not accurate in any way.

So, this is why it is perfectly legal to buy tanks and fighter jets, if you can afford them:

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor...

Slime-balls

[Dunbal]

"and owners must know when they can reasonably expect privacy and be free of prying eyes."

Lawyer acts like he's doing a fucking public service. What a crusader for truth and justice. How about - AT ALL TIMES when I'm home, fucker. Hah, it's not like he cares, he's getting paid either way.

Re: Slime-balls

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine that in your mind, you're eloquent, funny, and coherent.

In reality, nobody knows what the fuck you are rambling about. Take your meds.

Re:Slime-balls

[dfghjk]

"How about - AT ALL TIMES when I'm home, fucker."

The law is already established that you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy simply because you are home. The lawyer is correct, you are not.

Re:Slime-balls

[paiute]

AT ALL TIMES

I think it is going to become an airspace issue. A small drone hovering over my house? I can see a reasonable right to destroy something that low. A jet flying over my property at FAA allowed height to land at the airport? I don't think I will get permission to shoot at that.

Re:Slime-balls

[fnj]

Bullshit.

Re:Slime-balls

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, let me know where you live so I can watch your wife and kids undress through a telescope. After all, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are at home.

Re:Slime-balls

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're getting naked in front of an open window, you'd have to be a complete idiot to complain that people can see you..

And yet here you are trying to make that very argument.

Re:Slime-balls

[ScentCone]

That's why, for centuries, people have been intelligently deploying ... curtains on their windows.

Re:Slime-balls

[ScentCone]

This has already been well established. The air above your house is NOT yours, beyond the height you can use. In one case, a judge settled on 83 feet. Somebody flying his little quadcopter by at 200 feet isn't in "your" airspace at all, hovering or not.

Re: Slime-balls

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps I need to build a flock of drone-slayer-drones that use that airspace to attack and dismember other drones. That's me using my airspace robot-wars style. :)

Re: Slime-balls

[Dunbal]

This kind of thing only works on the weak :)

Re:Slime-balls

[ancientt]

I believe this described the tacit limit of your property rights as "within shotgun range."
Repeating my statement from From Tuesday October 27, 2015

Re: Slime-balls

[Anonymous Coward]

We call them 'birds'

http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/02/police-are-training-eagles-to-take-down-drones.html

Re:Slime-balls

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. The FAA says 500 ft before you have to get approval to build from them. And that approval is mainly so you will put a light on the building. I suspect your one judge 83 ft example refers to some particular not applicable to the general situation because the general situation is...500ft. I would even suggest that the air over 500 ft is yours as you CAN build that high and still call it your property. What we have is usage of property with multiple needs for that space. Considering that the FAA has settled on 500ft there would have to be a reappraisal to allow for drone use. The public interest vs the default property right. BTW property rights are recognized in the constitution whereas drone flights are not. Actually since buildings regular go higher than 500 ft and only permitting is at issue, not acquiring additional property over some altitude it appears that property rights extend to at least as high as you can build.

Back to earth...Do you really think I could put a long telescopic arm with a camera on top of a truck, park it in the street and extend the arm over peoples property to look around and not have that understood as trespass? What is it about drones that attracts the socially retarded?

Re:Slime-balls

[I'm New Around Here]

How about getting naked in a bathroom with the curtains shut, but with a slight gap that the telescope can see through? Especially if the person has it mounted on a news van sitting at the curb right in front of the house, 24 hours a day.

The logic of your argument fails quicker than that of the AC's post you replied to.

Re:Slime-balls

[I'm New Around Here]

Go mount a camera with telephoto lens on a tall tripod on the sidewalk in front of someone's house. Have it pointed at any of their 'curtain protected' windows.

Don't let anyone tell you that you are invading that homeowner's privacy, and refuse to leave your position.

Let us know how long before the police arrest you.

Re:Slime-balls

[BarbaraHudson]

The law is you can't fly a drone above 400 feet because, as far as the supreme court is concerned, private airspace ends at 500 feet, and you need a safety margin. So, if it was flying below 500 feet, fire away, because it IS legally in your airspace. Also, courts generally will take previous relevant decisions into consideration, which means that they are going to look at the criminal complaint, which said he could shoot it. If the complainant didn't want that to be used against his civil claim, he should have appealed it first. Stupid idiot.

Re:Slime-balls

[BarbaraHudson]

How about naked on the top floor, so nobody on the street can see a darn thing, and there are no other buildings nearby? There's a reasonable expectation of privacy there.

Re:Slime-balls

[BarbaraHudson]

This has already been well established. The air above your house is NOT yours, beyond the height you can use. In one case, a judge settled on 83 feet. Somebody flying his little quadcopter by at 200 feet isn't in "your" airspace at all, hovering or not.

If I can fly my drone up to 400 feet above my house, then I am making use of that airspace, which makes that MY airspace according to your, and the court's reasoning.

Re:Slime-balls

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Excellent point and well made. People who are coming out saying the drone operators are perfectly fine obviously haven't though more than six inches in front of their face. Short-sighted idiots, they can't envision a situation because they refuse to think about it from the "how could a bad guy misuse this" perspective.

Re:Slime-balls

[Anonymous Coward]

Go mount a camera with telephoto lens on a tall tripod on the sidewalk in front of someone's house. Have it pointed at any of their 'curtain protected' windows.

Don't let anyone tell you that you are invading that homeowner's privacy, and refuse to leave your position.

Let us know how long before the police arrest you.

You know the police have to put up with obnoxious people filming them in basically the same manner right?
Unless there's actually a law being broken, there's nothing they can do. Maybe if it was obstructing the sidewalk? Who's knows what city or county laws would apply, but those sure aren't universal.

Of course the homeowner can give some kid a snickers bar to throw a basketball at it, turn a hose on it, something like that.
I'd probably just steal it in broad daylight to be honest, but I could get a lot more creative if that couldn't be done.

There isn't a law against EVERYTHING, and if there is it doesn't stop things from happening.
People need to act civil or... karma.

Re:Slime-balls

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this gets bandied about here but isn't really correct.

This Slate article isn't really complete either but for the sake of this discussion points you in the correct direction (up, in this case).

CWD

Re:Slime-balls

[Type44Q]

That's why, for centuries, people have been intelligently deploying ... curtains on their windows.

There are also valid reasons why, for decades, people have been intelligently deploying... number six bird shot (out to forty meters or so).

Now you can add another. ;)

Re:Slime-balls

[ScentCone]

Enjoy paying your legal fees as you try to defend against the prosecution you'l receive for throwing birdshot at a person outside your property. Long lens or not.

Re:Slime-balls

[ScentCone]

If I can fly my drone up to 400 feet above my house, then I am making use of that airspace, which makes that MY airspace according to your, and the court's reasoning.

No, if you fly 400 feet above your house, you're in THE airspace. Not YOUR airspace.

Re:Slime-balls

[antdude]

What if the drones have infrareds and other features? :P

Re:Slime-balls

[BarbaraHudson]

It's above my house. I;m making use of it. The court says if it's above my house and I'm making use of it, it's my airspace. I could have a balloon tethered there with an antenna, it would be my airspace.

Re:Slime-balls

[ausekilis]

This is a poor example. I once had a crazy neighbor that pointed a baby monitor (possibly recording) at my front door. She would call animal control or the police because my dog barked at her after she blew a whistle at him. I asked the officer if there was anything he could do, and he said "your front door is visible from the publicly accessible sidewalk, so no." Granted, he's not a lawyer or judge, but he knows more laws than I do.

If we take that knowledge, then your example wouldn't be illegal. Cops may get you for something else, such as harassment or something relating to emotional distress of whomever you're recording, but the act of recording in and of itself wouldn't be illegal.

This is different than the Drone Killer's case, where he and his kids were in his own back yard. This is not a publicly accessible space and they do have a right to privacy here. A closer example would be your neighbor filming you and your kids. From a tree. On a branch that's on your side of the fence. In your backyard.

Re:Slime-balls

[Anonymous Coward]

The law says you have a reasonable expectation of privacy... from GOVERNMENT intrusion. And even then, the jurisprudence hasn't exactly favored Second Amendment remedies to a violation...

You don't have a special expectation of privacy that allows you to do whatever you want to other people. If other people violate other laws--by trespassing, breaking and entering, hacking your phone, etc.--in order to violate your privacy, they can be arrested for violating those laws. And sometimes, local laws are passed specifically with privacy in mind: For example, anti-voyeurism laws, or laws regulating how audio recordings may be made.

There is not, however, a general right to break laws in order to remedy "privacy violations" that don't involve breaking other laws.

Re:Slime-balls

[david_thornley]

I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy just because I'm at home. Anything I do that's visible from public land doesn't have any expectation of privacy. I have a reasonable expectation when I'm in my home. That's why it's illegal for the police to do an IR scan of my house without a warrant.

Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with the man shooting the drones. Fuck off outside of the city with that shit or into a park. Anyone can say they aren't spying with their drones, including those who spy; and drones are becoming more and more dangerous as cartels and gangs are starting to use them.
You didn't see me running an RC car and my chopper all over the fucking city when i was a kid, i had the decency to keep that shit in-house, in the garden, or in a park.

Re: Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you own the land outside the city you plan to fly on I wouldn't suggest that either.

There is a reason there are rc clubs with private airstrips and tracks.

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns don't kill people, the ones pulling the trigger do.

The drone did not spy on the guy's daughter, the drone operator did.

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, let's see: knives, cars, slippery floors, radiation, water, cold, heat, cancer and so on. All kill people so let's make them illegal. It seems pretty black and white to me.
Moron!

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Paint the drone black, the cops will shoot it, problem solved.

Re:Yup

[Assmasher]

The difference being that guns are designed and intended to kill. Cars, floors, radiation, water, cold, head, even cancer - are not.

Re:Yup

[I'm New Around Here]

Paint the prophet Mohammad on it. Then the muslims will shoot it.

Re: Yup

[I'm New Around Here]

Unless you own the land outside the city you plan to fly on I wouldn't suggest that either.

There is a reason there are rc clubs with private airstrips and tracks.

That may have been his point. Other that that, there are many areas of the country (the US in this example) with wide open spaces that no one is going to care if someone is flying a toy helicopter over one weekend a month.

Re:Yup

[BlueStrat]

The difference being that guns are designed and intended to kill.

That's why they work so well to protect life and property from those who would take them violently and why police carry them for the same reasons, duh!

It protects the smaller woman (or anybody less able to physically defend themselves) from the larger (and possibly more numerous) rapist(s)/attacker(s)/home-invader(s).

Privately owned firearms are used for defensive protection in the US on average (often without a shot being fired) anywhere from the bottom-end estimates of ~50,000-80,000 to a middle of ~2,500,000 and higher end estimates go to as high as ~4,700,000 times a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Strat

Re:Yup

[Assmasher]

Yes, because they're meant to kill - of course they're a better deterrent than something not meant to kill...

The numbers you quote, which came from actual studies, are valuable; however, the rather important contrast (you left out for some reason) is that given the average annual defensive firearm incidents reported - the number of violent crimes committed using firearms is astronomically higher (in 1992 for example, 931,000.)

Statistics clearly state that gun ownership is not an effective deterrent to violent crime committed with a gun.

I'm not interested in taking peoples' guns away, but it does get annoying to listen to the bullshit spouted in the name of "guns are good" and "the only cure for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" types of stupidity.

BTW, not sure where you got the crazy numbers of 2.5 million and 4.7 million given that in 1992 there were fewer than 4.7 million violent crimes of any time (robbery, murder, manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault, et cetera...)

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun ownership is protected by a constitutional amendment. Drones have no such protection. It seems pretty black and white to me.

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

"Statistics clearly state that gun ownership is not an effective deterrent to violent crime committed with a gun."

It is dishonest to use this as a conclusion to your stat on on crimes committed using a firearm. The 2 statistics are separate and the one you present does not reference a distinction where the victim of the crime did or did not have a firearm themselves with which they could use as defence.

Re: Yup

[drinkypoo]

Unless you own the land outside the city you plan to fly on I wouldn't suggest that either.

Some of us live in areas with substantial public lands which are not wildlife preserves. Now, to be fair, my local BLM land is also a MOA, and in theory people aren't supposed to fly model aircraft in special operational areas. But on the flip side...

There is a reason there are rc clubs with private airstrips and tracks.

...a famous rc club strip in the Mojave is also in a MOA. And aircraft are allowed to use MOAs without permission at their own risk, so it seems like so long as I obey all the usual restrictions (max 400' AGL, LoS or in communication with a spotter with LoS) that's not a problem.

I could also just go fly at Highland Springs reservoir, which (like my house) is within the 5 mile circle around the local airport, if I just notify them ahead of time. One is not required to ask permission either, although they'd surely let me know if there were going to be firefighting aircraft in the area, at which point I wouldn't be permitted to fly. The only place around an airport where you're really not allowed to fly is within a certain relatively short distance around the air strips of controlled airports themselves. You can fly RC around private airstrips (as in, for real aviation) with permission, but you are required to keep a certain distance from actual aircraft in operation.

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of your 931,000 'gun crimes' are paperwork crimes - possession, failure to pay taxes, illegal modification, import or transport violations, being black while driving, etc. Actual crimes involving guns, even those where they are never fired, are far fewer - around 300,000.

Here's a direct quote from the CDC study:
"...estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

The 500,000 number? That came from a pro-gun-control organization. Remember the Brady Foundation for Handgun Control? Yeah, they've admitted the same.

You can try reading the CDC report yourself. And remember - the CDC wants to bad guns entirely, so when they admit that there are good uses, it's because they can't deny it.

Re: Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

I was planning to fly within 5 miles of ksez(most of the the trails we are going on are within that radius), I know there are some helicopter traffic also in the area that you need to be aware of(and of course, plan ahead and research, not being a jerk and bother people and animals, staying away from private property etc).
But they do not seem to have any control tower or contact information.
Now I am a foreigner, so I have been reading up on the FAA website and they write that I can register and fly but the registration are geoblocked, go figure. :D

Re: Yup

[drinkypoo]

If you are an AMA member, contact them for help.

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns don't kill people, lead pollution kills people.

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, let's see: knives, cars, slippery slope [...]

FTFY

Incidentally, (certain) knives, cars, and (some) radiation are regulated.

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

A majority of the defensive use of firearms does not result in a shot being fired, and as such are often not reported in official statistics. Hence parent's "estimates of..." statement.

Ruining it for everyone

[burtosis]

I'm not sure how you can argue it was not invading privacy when it was downed with a shotgun. The maximum effective range is around 75 yards and you can pretty much shoot at people 300 yards away and pose no danger (do not do this obviously). If the wreckage was examined you could know roughly how close it was to the shotgun without resorting to any telemetry from the drone captured prior to it being downed.

While the law may be somewhat incomplete, you are an asshole if you fly a drone close people or their dwelling on their property. Get permission from the property owner first, it seems to be the ease of use of drones and the entitled attitudes some few people have ruined it for everyone and make new laws necessary.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

the asshole is the first one to lawyer up.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[RandomSurfer314]

I think these people are more than just assholes. Annoying people and their children with shitty tech gadgets in their own house and garden should be a felony. If your own house and garden suddenly become public places where your asshole neighbor can film you and your children, then the dystopian future has really arrived. I mean, people work really hard to get their own house and garden (I wish I could afford one). Why do they do that? To have their own house and garden where they can expect the little privacy that's left nowadays. Are we soon having to hide under our bed sheets to be free from spying neighbors and governments?

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[misexistentialist]

Average lot is a fraction of an acre so the drone will always be in range of a few houses. Kind of silly to defend this kind of "privacy" given the amount of surveillance people not only accept but enthusiastically support. Pics of that girl fully exposed are probably on a dozen government servers and have been viewed by hundreds of "analysts"

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[kenai_alpenglow]

It's your responsibility to determine ownership of said road. If you're really in doubt look it up at the courthouse. Otherwise stay off that road.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we soon having to hide under our bed sheets to be free from spying neighbors and governments?

Given anti-sodomy laws and other religious right causes, we certainly are not private under our bed sheets.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, millennial drone user. It shouldn't matter how far property owners own vertically. If you're flying low enough to bother someone, then it might be a good idea to not fly there. Instead, fly where it won't bother people.

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[Entrope]

If your car is driving along that dirt road while unmanned, maybe someone shooting it would be analogous to shooting down a drone. If a person is in the car, it's much easier to stop the car and tell them to stop (compared to a drone, where the operator may not be visible), and shooting at the vehicle puts a person at risk of harm (compared to a drone, where the only risk is recompensable property damage).

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC here, I work in land records and from the information I have seen over they years it works exactly the OPPOSITE of what you suggest. Current trespassing laws require ownership of the land, and notice that the owner of the land does not want people to trespass (signs, fences, verbal warning). Legally anyone can walk across anyones (unmarked, unfenced, unchallenged) property without fear of prosecution and with legal protection against assault. After all it would be a nightmare if every-time you wanted to take a new road, walk down an unfamiliar sidewalk or visit a park for the first time you had to go double check at the land records office to make sure you weren't trespassing. Sure you SHOULD check the land records before driving on what may be someone elses property but there is no legal requirement to do so. But that assumes that someone actually owns it in the clear, there are many situations where it is "no mans land", there are prescriptive rights, long forgotten (but still legally in force) easements, etc. Drones do of course add a kink to the whole thing since it isn't really established how high above a persons property is owned by the property owner (current case law is >=83') and it isn't really viable to have every homeowner put a big "no trespassing" sign in the middle of their property. These issues will have to be ironed out via legislation or the courts.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[Pascoea]

I fly in my back yard all of time time. I'm well within shotgun range of 4 neighbors. Does that mean I'm automatically an asshole and automatically trying to get a peek at my neighbors daughters? Or is the possibility that I'm learning how to fly, in MY backyard, during reasonable hours? Why should I need to go get permission from my neighbor to fly a quad in my back yard?

What's wrong with the criminal process as it is today? If the neighbor thinks I am taking pictures of his daughter (whether from a quad, or from my deck using a camera with a nice zoom on it) he can call the police, and they can do their job. If I'm disturbing their peace (by flying my quad, using a chainsaw, or playing loud music) there are legal avenues for that too.

None of these situations need to involve shotguns or willful destruction of property. People taking the law into their hands is never a good thing.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[Uberbah]

Average lot is a fraction of an acre so the drone will always be in range of a few houses.

Then take your drone to a park.

Kind of silly to defend this kind of "privacy" given the amount of surveillance people not only accept but enthusiastically support.

Non sequitur.

Pics of that girl fully exposed are probably on a dozen government servers and have been viewed by hundreds of "analysts"

And cops shoot or beat innocent people to death in the streets. That mean it's ok if you take a bat to some stranger out walking his dog?

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[drinkypoo]

I'm not sure how you can argue it was not invading privacy when it was downed with a shotgun. The maximum effective range is around 75 yards and you can pretty much shoot at people 300 yards away and pose no danger (do not do this obviously).

75 yards is damned near the minimum height at which you can legally fly an airplane, upon which you can mount a big fancy camera. The drone does not pose a privacy risk that isn't already posed by aircraft, when operated legally. Does it potentially "violate" your notional privacy? You betcha. Does that give you the right to shoot it with your shotgun? Nope. You shoot it with a camera, show that its camera was or at least could have been facing your daughter, and go to the DA. If they're doing their job, after consulting an expert they can file suit on your behalf and subpoena any camera footage if there is a legitimate privacy concern.

While the law may be somewhat incomplete, you are an asshole if you fly a drone close people or their dwelling on their property.

You're also an asshole if you shoot a drone out of the air with a shotgun where it may pose a significant fire hazard. There's assholes all around in this story.

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[kenai_alpenglow]

Not in this state.... ALL land is Posted--you do not have to mark it as such. Legally you must have written permission to cross private property unless your name is on the deed. For practical purposes this is not taken to the extreme, but during hunting season it's enforced quite a bit. If you really work in land records, you should know that laws vary from state to state.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[burtosis]

I fly in my back yard all of time time. I'm well within shotgun range of 4 neighbors. Does that mean I'm automatically an asshole and automatically trying to get a peek at my neighbors daughters? Or is the possibility that I'm learning how to fly, in MY backyard, during reasonable hours? Why should I need to go get permission from my neighbor to fly a quad in my back yard?

What's wrong with the criminal process as it is today? If the neighbor thinks I am taking pictures of his daughter (whether from a quad, or from my deck using a camera with a nice zoom on it) he can call the police, and they can do their job. If I'm disturbing their peace (by flying my quad, using a chainsaw, or playing loud music) there are legal avenues for that too.

None of these situations need to involve shotguns or willful destruction of property. People taking the law into their hands is never a good thing.

Where in the thread is anyone saying you can't fly over your own property? If you fly your drone over their property and within a few tens of feet of people and dwelling windows yes your drone deserves a shotgun blast because you are being an asshole. No one is saying you can't do what you want on your own property as your straw man arguments suggest.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[Uberbah]

The drone does not pose a privacy risk that isn't already posed by aircraft, when operated legally.

I see you went to the Pete Hoekstra school of analogies. Where to even begin? You have to have a pilots license to fly the lowliest crop duster - which can't be purchased for a few hundred dollars (or less) from Wal-Mart. Aircraft take off and land from airports or airstrips, not in the middle of residential areas. And yeah, it would be a violation of your privacy if a helicopter pilot decided to hover over your property at low altitude.

You shoot it with a camera, show that its camera was or at least could have been facing your daughter, and go to the DA. If they're doing their job, after consulting an expert they can file suit on your behalf and subpoena any camera footage if there is a legitimate privacy concern.

Pete. Pete. Pete. Up here, Pete. And how is the property owner going to know which house the drone came from, much less who the pilot was? You think the county sheriff is going to serve a warrant on a neighborhood and search house by house for a drone?

You're also an asshole if you shoot a drone out of the air with a shotgun where it may pose a significant fire hazard. There's assholes all around in this story.

Wrong. There's only one asshole in the story, the pilot who got an $1800 lesson in common courtesy.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[RandomSurfer314]

To be fair to the rotten US justice system, though, I'm pretty sure that anti-sodomy laws have not been invoked for a long time.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[RandomSurfer314]

There was never any problems with RC enthusiasts. They go to a special place where they disturb nobody else and let their planes fly. Why are owners of drones incapable of doing the same? Why they have to film other people without their permission, spy on neighbors, and also pester people in public places? Why do they have to fly their drones in densely populated areas or near airports? Why can't they respect their fellow citizens wishes at all? Is it really so hard to behave in a civil way like the RC community managed for many decades without problems?

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[BarbaraHudson]

And cops shoot or beat innocent people to death in the streets. That mean it's ok if you take a bat to some stranger out walking his dog?

As a dog owner, I'd say if they didn't pick up their dog's sh*t, I have no real problem with you taking a bat to them. Just don't hit the dog - it's not their fault.

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[I'm New Around Here]

Let's assume we have a certain wooded block that's two miles to a side in the country, and several landowners that own non-rectangular sections. None of it is marked "No Trespassing", in accordance with your assertion. It is well known that all of the landowners except one allow hunting on their parcel, no written permission required.

Now let's someone is walking on property owned by a landowner that allows hunting, and he crosses 10 feet over the unmarked boundary onto the property of the landowner that does not allow trespassing. He then turns around and retraces his steps back 20 feet, all without knowing he even crossed that boundary.

If the non-permissive landowner had a camera there, and took the video of trespass to the local prosecutor's office, do you think he could get the trespasser arrested? Do you think the trespasser could possibly be convicted if it did go to court?

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[I'm New Around Here]

Are you still beating your wife in the privacy of your own home?

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[I'm New Around Here]

And cops shoot or beat innocent people to death in the streets. That mean it's ok if you take a bat to some stranger out walking his dog?

Only if he doesn't pick up the pile of poop.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[I'm New Around Here]

If you're flying it over your own property, you probably are standing there in your backyard. Your neighbor probably saw you in your backyard. Your neighbor probably knows you have a toy helicopter you fly over your own backyard.

If after all that, you only fly if over your own backyard, but only when the neighbor's teenage daughter is sunbathing in their backyard, yes it deserves to be taken out.

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[jsh1972]

Annoying someone should be a felony. Glad you're not in charge of making the laws.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

75 yards is nothing for a shotgun loaded with slugs or 000 buck.

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Not being invoked is a nasty law problem. When I need to bother/oppress someone, I may come up short. Then Iook for such sleeping laws, and find a way to get them in prison. Perhaps some ex is willing to witness. . .

Work to repeal sleeping laws, dont be happy that it is sleeping now. Sleepers wake at the most inconvenient times.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[DarkVader]

And legally can't be, because they're unconstitutional.

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[kenai_alpenglow]

It depends. After all, we've just had the FBI state that a certain politician broke the law (Yes the person did--look up the law and notice that intent is not an excuse. This is *emphasized* in all training about said law.), but no one would persecute. The FBI was correct, because of who this person is. So this person goes free, despite what happened. Now look at another person involved with a youtube video that supposedly caused the attack in Libya on 11 Sep. Although this person could possibly be said to have violated the law in question, the chance of being prosecuted was extremely small. So small, that except for the name of the person pushing the prosecution he never would have been sent to jail & his life ruined. SO.....If the person who owned the land that was trespassed on (Yes, he did trespass according to the law) was named Joe Smith, your trespassor probably would not be arrested. However, if the person who owned it was the same politician mentioned above, and this person had a beef with the person who trespassed, you bet your read-end he would be arrested. And fined to he max. Is that right? Nope. Does it happen? Yep. Happened to a friend of mine in college, who was a member of a group who did minor trespass on a lawyer's property. Another example: say the guy who trespassed was in a feud with the family who owned the land...and the prosecutor was a member of that same family. There are some pretty petty people out there, and some of them are in power (small town politics).

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that it's fine as long as only rich people do it?

Because that's what you're actually saying.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Case law can be set after this idiot learns his $1800 lesson, and that can prevent the abuses of the rich doing it without care for such small losses.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[PostPhil]

In the case of the "drone slayer", the only reason he even knew who piloted the drone is because they drove up to his house all pissed-off that he downed their drone. If all you do is call the cops because a drone is loitering over your yard, even if you have video footage of the drone, how do you know who the drone belongs to? Who are the cops supposed to arrest? If the drone operators sees you calling the cops, what makes you think they won't just fly off and leave nothing for the cops to do? No, the current legal recourse is NOT sufficient. The law is *supposed* to be on the side of the victim, not the asshole who cause the problem in the first place. You trespass with a drone, and if downing it is the only way to stop the problem or catch the perpetrators, then you're getting your drone downed, sorry. Your rights aren't more important than mine.

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[david_thornley]

Clinton did not deliberately put classified information on a system not cleared for it. I don't know the law involved, and am not a lawyer, but nobody's pointed me at some other person who did that and got significant criminal prosecution (there was a case of a misdemeanor charge that was dropped). I'd be interested in any more names of people who negligently got classified material where it wasn't supposed to be.

The point was that violations of that type are not handled through the legal system, and so there was no precedent for prosecuting Clinton. That would be just as applicable to you or me as it is to her.

There was widespread unrest on the day you mentioned, and some may have been caused by the video (and nobody's claimed to me that the video was in any way illegal). The Benghazi attackers used the unrest as cover, so it wouldn't be clear where security forces were needed. As far as anyone's told me, no US citizen broke the law with respect to the attack.

And, of course, all of this is irrelevant to laws about trespassing, drones, and the shooting of drones and/or trespassers. There are places where you'll get in trouble for trespassing, because the laws tend to be different in those places. Not all trespassing is illegal in the same way, and there, as you have pointed out, jerks who are not politicians who will prosecute to the max.

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[kenai_alpenglow]

I deliberately left off her name because it was not relevant to the discussion. Regardless, she was extremely careless (FBI words). I have had multiple briefings that state in B&W that carelessness is NOT an excuse and IS prosecutable (jailtime and fines mentioned). The video guy was busted for a minor parole violation that gets almost everyone (except him) a slap on the wrist. As to what this has to do with trespassers: Who you are & who you know can dramatically affect how your are treated in the legal system. This directly addresses the example I was replying to. Also, the original post dealt with a vehicle driving down a private road. That raises the bar dramatically on knowing whose land you are on. Think MethHeads, pot growers, thieves, trash dumpers, etc. Whenever you see a strange vehicle in these parts, you need to assume the worst---unfortunately. If I drove down a private road you bet I'd make sure I had permission--or risk a load of birdshot (or worse).

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Not being familiar with the laws in your state, I'd say based on what little I know (which is probably wrong) that if there were no signs up that said 'no trespassing' and the trespasser was not asked to leave, or if the trespasser left when asked and did not come back, then a reasonable court would not convict him, and therefore a reasonable DA, knowing this, would not press charges and a reasonable cop would therefore not bother to arrest him.
 
Notice there's a lot of assumptions in that statement about how very reasonable all those people are. You could probably also get them a visit from a cop to issue them a warning saying "Don't do it again" but that's about it.

Re: Ruining it for everyone

[david_thornley]

The whole Clinton thing was irrelevant, and it was very obvious who you were talking about.

I understand that Clinton could have been prosecuted, but in fact nobody has given me the name of anyone who did what she did and was prosecuted. Your briefings seem to have been more strict than the justice system, which is reasonable. I don't know the story of the video guy, but I'd have to verify it before I trusted what you say about it.

As far as who you are and who you know affecting how you're treated, well, duh. Police can shoot people dead for no reason and not get tried and convicted, for a glaring example.

Re:Ruining it for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

75 yards is damned near the minimum height at which you can legally fly an airplane[...]

Actually it is less than half the legal minimum.

Does it matter?

[quenda]

Does it matter if the drone operator was in the wrong? That does not give the hillbilly permission to shoot it.
How about the next time his pickup truck exceeds the speed limit or parks illegally, we set it on fire. Is that OK?

Re: Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he speeding in your yard? Parked illegally in your daughters favourite suntanning spot? Didn't think so.

Re:Does it matter?

[Mr D from 63]

Does it matter if the drone operator was in the wrong? That does not give the hillbilly permission to shoot it. How about the next time his pickup truck exceeds the speed limit or parks illegally, we set it on fire. Is that OK?

If he is remotely operating a large vehicle in such a dangerous fashion on your property, you might be we within your rights to do so.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't matter. All drones should be used as targets. Fuck you and your idiotic prying eye in the sky. If you want to see the world, get out of your mom's basement.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Yes, it matters a lot whether the drone operator was in the wrong, as that's a necessary condition for a response.

2. Writing "hillbilly" weakens your rhetoric, as it suggests prejudice.

3. Invading someone's property with your property is not the same as exceeding the speed limit on someone else's property.

4. Starting a fire is not the same as removing a potential threat.

You want to enjoy your toy? Buy some property to enjoy it on, or hire someone else's. Alternatively, form agreements with your local government for use of parks. Otherwise, except people to exercise their property rights.

(On a separate note, "B..b...but I wasn't actually trying to focus on your daughter!" is irrelevant. You don't have to be in the process of intentionally taking video of someone's daughter to have people question your making a deliberate effort to move within eyeshot of them.)

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, bigotry and genocide are good when the victims are white.

Re:Does it matter?

[Ol Olsoc]

Does it matter if the drone operator was in the wrong? That does not give the hillbilly permission to shoot it. How about the next time his pickup truck exceeds the speed limit or parks illegally, we set it on fire. Is that OK?

Living in 21st century 'Murrica, other questions come to mind, If a person sees a human powered airplane or helicopter over their property, and believes the pilots are spying on his teenage daughter, does that mean that the guy in Kentucky has the right to shoot down the flying device?

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

not sure anything resembling genocide is occurring, but yeah, bigotry against certain classes of white people is no more acceptable than bigotry against blacks. and anyone who thinks that rural whites in flyover states are "privileged" has probably been living their whole life on a Californian college campus.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you write "Online Forum Pro-Tip" it betrays your neck beard and incessant preoccupation with trying to remain as smug and arrogant as possible when actual adults are talking while you are yelling at strangers with your head up your ass.

Happy to help.

Re:Does it matter?

[angel'o'sphere]

does that mean that the guy (you meant "yahoo", right?) in Kentucky has the right to shoot down the flying device?
As you mentioned Kentucky explicitly, I would say: YESssss!

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet RobotRunAmok is correct.

Re:Does it matter?

[CrimsonAvenger]

How about the next time his pickup truck exceeds the speed limit or parks illegally, we set it on fire. Is that OK?

Parked illegally on your propoerty? Tow it away and no problems. And no, you're not required to tell him where it was towed to. Set it on fire? Generally, setting ANYTHING on fire without a permit is illegal, so I wouldn't try that. Though if you left your pickup in front of my aunt's house, she'd set it on fire in a heartbeat. And dump the leftovers into the pond....

Re: Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Including those rural whites who believe themselves to be the Only True Americans?

Believe it or not, they do have a lot of belief in their own worth.

That's why they can look down on those snooty city slickers who don't know nothing.

The Acceptable Targets list changes by zip code.

Re:Does it matter?

[Ol Olsoc]

Online Forum Pro-Tip: When you write "'Murrica," you betray your classist prejudice, weaken your argument, and reveal yourself as a hipster lightweight.

Or I can be sarcastic. Sarcasm has nothing to do with hipsterism, more to dealing with people who find that using deadly force is fun.

One most interesting thing is that you manage to make some claims, about my Hipsterism and the AV club, you manage to do a whole psyche workup on me. Odd. You'd be real surprised to find out what I actually am. But I'll leave that to your febrile imagination.

Kind RobotRunAmok, when we try to determine what another person is with precious little information, and based upon an incorrect assumption in the first place, we tend to engage in projection.

And when we completely ignore the reasonable question that comes along with the sarcasm, we manage to project even more. You give me much more info about yourself than I ever gave you.

Back to the meat of my comment, completely ignored in your snarkalicious reply:

In this case, we most certainly do have a property rights issue. Do you own the airspace above your house?

This is not just a simple drone issue. If you own the property rights to the airspace, anyone entering it is trespassing. Police will need a warrant to fly over it. You will be able to claim "stand your ground" laws if a Ultralight flies over your property, and you terminate the pilot, armed or unarmed.

How much leeway is there? If you fear you are being spied on, do you have a perimeter off your property that will serve as a "grace area" if you stand your ground and shoot down a drone, that turns out to not be on your property?

Do you have the right to shoot down a drone on the drone owner's property is you fear the drone on the drone owner's property is spying on you?

Do you have the right to terminate the drone owner if oyu see he is flying his drone over your property?

And in a country where more people are willing to use firearms as a first resort, perhaps such conversations are worth having. But you just fixate on "'Murrica", and become the dude who on Netnews a few years ago that declares someone's argument null and void because of a spelling mistake. A great way to move the conversation forwards. Thanks for playing, anyhow.

Re:Does it matter?

[Ol Olsoc]

And yet RobotRunAmok is correct.

No he isn't. He took one simple sarcasm, and tried to do a psyche writup on me, which was completely incorrect. Then he added declarations on me being a Hipster, and a member of the High school AV club.

I was being sarcastic, he was making incorrect declarations, possibly based on projection. Regardless, he completely ignored the salient part of my post, which makes for some interesting discussions.

Re: Does it matter?

[BarbaraHudson]

You take a chain an pull the car into the middle of the street, facing the wrong way and blocking traffic, then call the cops (I know a neighbor who did that). Or, you put it into an area where they're about to dig up the streets and gas mains. Half an hour later, they can't get to their car because all the asphalt around it is dug up and they're waiting on the tow truck to haul it off (I did that - statute of limitations is over. Moral of the story - don't block someone's loading dock in the middle of the day because someone might ask me to "fix" the problem with a coat hanger :-)

Re:Does it matter?

[Ol Olsoc]

does that mean that the guy (you meant "yahoo", right?) in Kentucky has the right to shoot down the flying device? As you mentioned Kentucky explicitly, I would say: YESssss!

Consumer drones have become interwoven with paranoia about weaponized military drones.

And there's a conversation that need to be had about that. Interestingly, I can get some of the folks who are paranoid about drones really really really pissed off when I combine their paranoia with what is often their main love in life. Guns.

And that is, Do we have the right to shoot down a weaponized consumer drone and deprive another American of their second amendment rights?" Do I have the right to protect my property using my second amendment rights?

And of course, the resulting anger is because I asked a really tough question. As a gun owner and drone owner, I don't have an issue with the concept of target shooting with a drone. But is sure as hell isn't simple when you are dealing with people who think in absolutes.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are an ignorant, bigoted asshole, clearly spurting out nonsense in a bid to gain attention for your own ego purposes, hypocritically projecting on a daily basis to satiate your need to not feel that people think of you the way you are. You do this pattern of behavior every day on slashdot.

Every damn day with your hate, ignorance, and ego. No substance. No positive points save for the sycophantic mods by people that behave the same as you. I'd imagine quite easily that people out in the real world avoid you for this behavior.

Re: Does it matter?

[jsh1972]

You could use a trampoline to jump high enough to see over a privacy fence. Omg burn all trampolines!

Re:Does it matter?

[Ol Olsoc]

You really are an ignorant, bigoted asshole, clearly spurting out nonsense in a bid to gain attention for your own ego purposes, hypocritically projecting on a daily basis to satiate your need to not feel that people think of you the way you are. You do this pattern of behavior every day on slashdot.

Every damn day with your hate, ignorance, and ego. No substance. No positive points save for the sycophantic mods by people that behave the same as you. I'd imagine quite easily that people out in the real world avoid you for this behavior.

Thak you. Pissing people off like you is one of my little joys in life. The more iirritate you, the more I validate myself.

Now that you are on the hook, let's roll, dear Coward. Game on?

Re: Does it matter?

[Ol Olsoc]

You could use a trampoline to jump high enough to see over a privacy fence. Omg burn all trampolines!

Or at least, allow people in Kentucky to shoot at them when their heads appear above the fence!

Re: Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Park a truck on my property without permission, and the price will be whatever parts I fancy. And whatever destruction I find interesting that day. Oh, and I might sell it as scrap metal.

Re: Does it matter?

[91degrees]

So, if he is, you have the right to destroy the truck?

Re: Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough. But if you do that, the penalty will probably be theft, punishable (in Kentucky) by 1 to 5 years in prison.

Re:Does it matter?

[Ol Olsoc]

Consumer drones have become interwoven with paranoia about weaponized military drones.

The questions are uncomfortable, are they not?

Re:Does it matter?

[angel'o'sphere]

Rofl,

no the questions are not uncomfortable.

I'm not an american and find the idea that so many of you run around with firearms the main reason why I rather fly with Elon Musk to Mars than visit the Grand Canyon.

I wonder why you don't feel uncomfortable to live in a "kind of" first world country where gun violence is on the level of Somalia.

It's already known

[Anonymous Coward]

Drone advocates can act as clueless as they wish but it is already established what we own. Up to 500ft. If building a structure less than 500 ft (Actually this was amended to 499) you need no clearance from the FAA. There is so much precedent on this that no ignorance can be taken seriously. Weather towers over less than 500ft are provided some guidance by the FAA but the FAA states this is only a helpful guideline to assist in safety for cropdusters. This feigned cluelessness by drone advocates is the same as all the cluelessness we have seen when some established rules are suddenly questioned just because the internet is involved. It's 500 ft. Ownership is a somewhat improper term. Property rights is a better term. You have the right to build unimpeded to 500 ft. Beyond this you need special clearance. This rude and boorish posturing by drone advocates would have us believe that you could build a foundation on your property then cantilever one foot off the ground such that the rest of the building was almost entirely over your neighbor's property. Pure and obvious rubbish from the drone operators.

Re:It's already known

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes the laws of common sense trump the laws on the books. Basic respect should keep you from flying drones above other people's property, along with concern for potential damage to peace and possessions. If that common sense is not present in your gene line or if you choose to ignore it, then you must be taught. Short of launching interceptor drones, a simple takedown with a firearm is the quickest and most efficient solution to the assault.

Re:It's already known

[Mr D from 63]

But if we allow this, the next thing ya know we'll be shooting at drone operators. That will inevitably lead to rounding them all up and putting them in gas chambers.

Re:It's already known

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you allow us to also get the lawyers, that might actually be an acceptable trade-off...

NOT!

Just fucking classify it as both a felony (which lets the police/corporate state do a colonoscopy on the drone operator's life to find dirty secrets to lock him for good) and a civil offense on your property and privacy rights (which lets you and the !@#$@!#$ lawyers cash in for like 10000x the value of the drone). That will get the shits out of the sky real fast, and so you will only have useful drones running around.

Re:It's already known

[Anonymous Coward]

Before ranting about how other people are clueless you might want to get a clue yourself. The establishment of airspace ownership is far from settled. The only case law on point "United States v. Causby" (1946), and that only puts private ownership at somewhere at or above 83'. The FAA claims that the beginning of "Navigable Airspace" is around 500' I believe, though in recent years they have claimed that they have regulatory authority over anything that leaves the ground (including paper airplanes) even though there is little establishing that authority. And we haven't even got to special restriction zones (around airports, major events, etc) No one with their heads screwed on straight would suggest that people don't own a reasonable amount of airspace above their property, but the claims by some of the anti-drone nuts have about as much basis in reality as Trumps "lets build a wall" campaign.

Re:It's already known

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just leave this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States

Please note where it says "A Landowner's domain extends at least up to 385 feet in rural areas" in the case law that you improperly cited.

Re:It's already known

[ScentCone]

Funny how you're asserting such specific details (anonymously) without something as simple as a link to this incredibly well established law. It doesn't exist. You're making it up. You're lying. And you know it, which is why you cannot cite even a general bit of guidance from the FAA (let alone a specific federal rule or piece of legislation) that to back up your hand-wavy assertion. Here's what we know: the FAA requires (without specific waiver) that operators stay UNDER 400'. The agency goes to great length to spell out dozens of specific rules that apply to newly certificed (part 107) commercial operators, and of course the rules for recreational operators are quite a bit looser. At no point, anywhere, does the FAA indicate the altitude below which you "own" the airspace around private property.

That doesn't mean operators should be jerks. But we know you're being one.

Re:It's already known

[sribe]

At no point, anywhere, does the FAA indicate the altitude below which you "own" the airspace around private property.

Of course not, the FAA has absolutely no authority over ownership of airspace above private property. You might as well assert that setbacks don't exist because the FAA does not indicate so...

Re:It's already known

[Anonymous Coward]

Seig Heil much?

Re:It's already known

[ScentCone]

The FAA has statutory authority over every bit of US (and territorial) air space from 1mm above the ground. They are exactly who defines who can fly where. That has nothing to do with things like privacy laws - that's about what you do with, for example, images taken while flying. Right now, that's a patchwork of local and state laws. But who (and what) can fly where and how high: that's FAA turf, entirely.

Re:It's already known

[Anonymous Coward]

14 CFR 77 and 49 USC 44718

That took all of about 30 seconds of googling.

Try harder.

Re:It's already known

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why you got modded as insightful for such a strawman argument. Whether or not you can build to 500ft does not imply no air traffic can operate in it (e.g., think of emergency helicopters). Furthermore, your example of building rights is ridiculous, no drone advocate has ever argued as much.

Re:It's already known

[sribe]

Ahem...

The federal government has exclusive sovereignty of U.S. airspace. Congress delegated to the FAA the ability to define “navigable airspace” and the authority to regulate “navigable airspace” of aircraft by regulation or order. 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1). While it is clear that navigable airspace falls under the purview of the FAA, the boundaries of that airspace remain unclear.

According to Federal Aviation Regulations, “navigable airspace” is defined as “airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under this chapter.... For airplanes, the minimum flight altitude while flying over congested areas or open air assemblies of persons is 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle.... Over uncongested areas, airplanes can operate at an altitude of 500 feet above the surface. However, airplanes can operate even lower when over “open water or sparsely populated areas.” When flying over those areas, aircraft may not operate closer than 500 feet to any person, vehicle, or structure....

Re:It's already known

[sbrown7792]

Go ahead and read a few more sentences in that link you provided. In case you're incapable of that, here you go:

In 2016, The FAA set regulations that "allow" drones to fly below 400 feet to prevent interference with planes above that height, and makes it a felony for a landowner to block drones flying through the lower altitudes regardless of ownership.

Citation attached to that quote
I'd certainly say taking a shotgun to an aircraft is one way to "block drones".

Also, I don't get why the judge can rule that he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft" when the FAA clearly lays out that it's illegal to "[perform] an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft" Source.

Re:It's already known

[david_thornley]

You do have a right to build up to 500' on your property (zoning laws permitting). In that case, you're using the airspace up to 500'. If you have an ordinary house, you're not using the airspace up to 100', so by FAA regs that's usable airspace under certain conditions. Note that there are laws about building things that do not involve FAA regs. The FAA doesn't care whether your structure is legal as long as it's not 500' high.

Re:It's already known

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about clueless.

> According to the FAA “regardless of the situation, shooting at any aircraft — including unmanned aircraft — poses a significant safety hazard. An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air. ”

http://www.popsci.com/it-is-federal-crime-to-shoot-down-drone-says-faa

> Myth #1: The FAA doesn't control airspace below 400 feet
> Fact—The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up. This misperception may originate with the idea that manned aircraft generally must stay at least 500 feet above the ground

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240

Amount in Controversy Requirement???

[huffybadger]

In order to sue in Federal court, a plaintiff much either show a Federal Question which allows federal courts to hear any case alleging a violation of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What is the Federal Question in this case.

If the suit isn't brought by claiming a Federal Question, the plaintiff must show that they meet a Amount in Controversy Requirement of possibly recovering a minimum of $75,000.

With the drone costing only $1,800 the defendant can show a Legal Certainty that the plaintiff's claim it really much less that the required $75,000 to bring the suit.

If the plaintiff cannot show a just possibility of recovering $75,000, the case will be dismissed

Re:Amount in Controversy Requirement???

[Shadow of Eternity]

Federal authority over flight rules is likely the federal question.

Re:Amount in Controversy Requirement???

[Mr D from 63]

Sounds like a lawyer is using this as a way to get his name in the papers. I'd bet he contacted the drone owners and convinced them.

Re:Amount in Controversy Requirement???

[Anonymous Coward]

Crowdfunding from all the other Drone Operator Assholes?
D.O.A seems to also mean Dead or Alive and Dead on Arrival.

It is is good job those Chinooks that fly over my property are manned because they are so low they represent a really juicy target.

Re:Amount in Controversy Requirement???

[huffybadger]

Just curious, how would this legal theory entitle the drone owners any right of recovery?

Re:Amount in Controversy Requirement???

[huffybadger]

If a lawyer did, it is probably an ethics violation...

Information About Legal Services
Model Rules - Rule 7.3 Solicitation of Clients

(a) A lawyer shall not by inperson, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted:

(1) is a lawyer; or

(2) has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.

(b) A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment by written, recorded or electronic communication or by inperson, telephone or real-time electronic contact even when not otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a), if:

(1) the target of the solicitation has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or

(2) the solicitation involves coercion, duress or harassment.

(c) Every written, recorded or electronic communication from a lawyer soliciting professional employment from anyone known to be in need of legal services in a particular matter shall include the words "Advertising Material" on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and ending of any recorded or electronic communication, unless the recipient of the communication is a person specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2).

(d) Notwithstanding the prohibitions in paragraph (a), a lawyer may participate with a prepaid or group legal service plan operated by an organization not owned or directed by the lawyer that uses inperson or telephone contact to solicit memberships or subscriptions for the plan from persons who are not known to need legal services in a particular matter covered by the plan.

Re:Amount in Controversy Requirement???

[Anonymous Coward]

If a lawyer did, it is probably an ethics violation.

And in the unlikely event someone reports him for an ethics violation we'll get a strongly worded warning that if he does it again he'll get another strongly worded warning.

Re:Amount in Controversy Requirement???

[Joe_Dragon]

Drone cost $1,800 and then court + legal fees = $73,200

Sued again?

[Mr D from 63]

Was he sued before?

Re:Sued again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the case was dismissed.

Re:Sued again?

[Mr D from 63]

Don't confuse being sued with being charged with a crime.

Registration numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones should be required to have registration numbers like aircraft. So, if one is being a nuisance or a peeping Tom, the numbers can be taken down and a complaint filed and civil action taken if desired.

Re:Registration numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

They already are, next non-issue.

"Federal law requires that all aircraft (which includes UAS and radio/remote controlled aircraft) flown outdoors must be registered with the FAA and marked with a registration number."

https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/

OPerator not telling the whole story

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that drone operator was trying to spy on the girl and is now playing the victim.

There was no other reason to be hovering over that man's property.

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one can always shoot the imbecile operating the drone instead with something a bit less lethal (I am partial to .25mm to the legs), the laws are already pretty much set on this. He will always be either an asshole, or a pervert, or up to no good (such as mapping your home for a later break in), will he not?

Looks like a good alternative to shooting the drone, since you can just dispose of the imbecile and not have to bother with lawyers (which are protected by the Devil).

IOW, they better ensure there is proper guidance on how to use (and how to down) a drone *fast*, preferably classifying spying (no matter the method, i.e. breaking into someone's computer and engaging the webcam should be the same as flying a drone) as a felony.

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[Anonymous Coward]

"He told NBC News that he and his friends were practicing flying the drone when another friend and neighbor texted him, challenging Boggs to fly it over his home."

There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support your perspective. Telemetry from the drone suggests it was much higher than the shooter claimed. He had received a request from a friend who's house was on that flight line to fly over his house. And the drone was found in a nearby park, not near the shooters property. Footage from the drone as it is shot alone seems to prove that he was taking area shots not focusing on any one house.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEG1hl6soAs

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[ScentCone]

I think that drone operator was trying to spy on the girl and is now playing the victim.

You don't "think" that, you're making that up because you wish it were true. But it's not. Read the details. The operator also has detailed flight logs to back up his description of events.

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[Uberbah]

Telemetry from the drone suggests it was much higher than the shooter claimed.

Yes, the pilot claimed 200 feet - but that's past the effective 40 yard range of most shotguns. And how accurate is that telemetry?

He had received a request from a friend who's house was on that flight line to fly over his house.

Then he should have checked with the other neighbors to see if it was ok, or at least so they would know he was taking pictures of his friends house and not looking for houses to break into. Seems the pilot got a $1800 lesson in common courtesy.

Footage from the drone as it is shot alone seems to prove that he was taking area shots not focusing on any one house.

Depending on the camera's zoom, you could take either a wide shot of someone's house, or be trying to get a closeup of someone's window.

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[RandomSurfer314]

Okay, let me be more direct then: The operator of that drone is the biggest asshole of all times. That's not just what I think, that's objectively true. Happy now?

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's obvious that you don't think.

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[Deadstick]

(I am partial to .25mm to the legs)

That's about a 26-gauge hypodermic needle...

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[Cederic]

I hate to Godwin this but..

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[Trongy]

> Yes, the pilot claimed 200 feet - but that's past the effective 40 yard range of most shotguns.

Effective range depends on what effect you are trying to achieve. In hunting terms, effective range is the distance at which you can expect a humane kill of the creature you are hunting. Quadcopters are fragile things so I would expect the effective range to take one down to be much higher than the quoted range for hunting birds.

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[Feral Nerd]

> Yes, the pilot claimed 200 feet - but that's past the effective 40 yard range of most shotguns.

Effective range depends on what effect you are trying to achieve. In hunting terms, effective range is the distance at which you can expect a humane kill of the creature you are hunting. Quadcopters are fragile things so I would expect the effective range to take one down to be much higher than the quoted range for hunting birds.

The effective range of a shotgun depends on what No. of shot yyou are using (shot density). the kind of choke you are using and what you are hunting. An American friend of mine took to shooting suirrels out of trees with a scoped Mossberg 500 using very fine bird shot and a special X-full choke at 50+ meters because of a shortage of 22 LR ammo in the states. With this combination of choke and shot you actually stand less chance of hitting something closer than ~30m because the pattern is still too tight and since you are shooting well beyond 40 meters you have to start accounting for drop and wind like with a rifle.

Re:OPerator not telling the whole story

[Anonymous Coward]

The drone operator has detailed logs that were delivered what was it, two weeks after the original incident? And how is it that if the logs were true then the drone wouldn't have been able to be shot down with a shotgun? You seem to forget that the logs claimed it was over 250 feet in the air at the time of being shot down. Number 7.5 shot in a 12 gauge physically can't shoot 250 feet straight up. Even less if it has to cover horizontal distance as well. If those logs were true, how the hell did it get shot down?

Easy answer to the federal question

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to the federal question is easy. Get a few of these drones flying over the White House and see if anybody complains. Done.

Re:Easy answer to the federal question

[ScentCone]

The answer to the federal question is easy. Get a few of these drones flying over the White House and see if anybody complains. Done.

The FAA has already designated a 30-mile-wide circle around the White House as a No Fly Zone - with serious penalties if you operate there. Bad example. You are not "done."

Re: Easy answer to the federal question

[Anonymous Coward]

If our mere servants are afforded such protection then it seems obvious that we can defend our own property. So GP is, indeed, "done". Another way to see this is that the 30 mile zone wouldn't exist if there were no problem with flying drones over each other's houses.

Re:Easy answer to the federal question

[Anonymous Coward]

Airspace over the White House is almost certainly subject to more regulations than the average property. Now, a dwelling of a Senator or two wouldn't be a half bad idea.

Re: Easy answer to the federal question

[drinkypoo]

If our mere servants are afforded such protection then it seems obvious that we can defend our own property.

On what basis?

Another way to see this is that the 30 mile zone wouldn't exist if there were no problem with flying drones over each other's houses.

Again, on what basis?

The articles are all a year old

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? All the links point to other Slashdot posting from over a year ago.

There is no new information here.

Difference between drones and RC planes/choppers

[bronney]

There's a fundamental difference between these so called drones and RC planes or choppers. Drone operators aren't interested in "piloting" . The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos and once that's the intention it changes the whole flight.

I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera. Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.

Look a bit higher

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should tell this dude about news helicopters, spy planes and satellites. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on your own property anywhere you can see the sky. The only difference here is that he could actually see the culprit. We should definitely limit where drones may fly for safety reasons, but let's not expand that to privacy reasons; we should be very careful not to return the monopoly on eyes in the sky back to Big Brother and Big Money.

Re:Look a bit higher

[hey!]

Well, the law disagrees with you. It doesn't, however, work like people here think it does. There isn't a line in the sky saying "this far, no farther". It depends on the nature and intent of the intrusion.

For example I've flown in a helicopter belonging to the Florida Keys Mosquito Control district. Those spray jockeys' job is to lay down pesticide on hard to reach places, particularly the first place a mosquito might light after crossing between islands which is likely to be a line of mangroves or bushes. They're accustomed to flying *low*. En route between Stock Island and Marathon Key we flew so low over peoples' houses I could certainly have told what magazines they left out by the pool -- if we hadn't been going over 100 mph. It's just normal business for those guys, and they're not targeting those homeowners in any way. But if we'd hovered over his house to ogle his teenage daughter, that would be an intrusion, apart from the epic noise.

This isn't really different from privacy law in general: context and intent matter. If someone is standing behind you at the ATM, that's not necessarily breach of privacy; but if they are doing it to look over your shoulder that's different. If your neighbor looks at the back of your house, it's normal. If he sits in his tree trying to peer through your back windows, it's not.

One of the landmark cases in privacy was Nader v.General Motors Corp. where GM retaliated against Nader for writing unkind things about its cars by hiring private investigators to dig up dirt and intimidate Nader. One of the things they did to intimidate him was to follow him around all day, often openly following him a few feet behind as he went about his business so he'd know he was being constantly watched. The court ruled this was an invasion of privacy. Sure the PIs had a right to be in the places they went, but they didn't have a right to be there doing what they were doing.

Re: Look a bit higher

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet Nader would have had no right to pull out a shotgun on them.

I can get behind having remedies to drone intrusion. Discharging a firearm is not on the top of my list.

Re:Look a bit higher

[cob666]

if we'd hovered over his house to ogle his teenage daughter

I never read anything that indicated the drone was 'ogling' the daughter.

I have two UAVs and use them for real estate aerial photography and to take pictures of people's houses for them (It's something that people do up here in Nova Scotia). I have to sometimes fly over other people property to get the correct viewpoint or angle and I only need permission to take off or land on somebody's property. If they have an issue with anything I'm doing they have the right to contact the RCMP. This has happened to me twice. On both occasions I showed the officer my documentation and insurance and the matter was dropped.

I think that people should be required to register their UAVs in the States, it will go a long way in ensuring that people understand what they can and can't do with their UAVs. People should also STOP calling them 'drones' because of the negative connotations with that word, it's instantly associated with spying which is NOT a good thing.

Re: Look a bit higher

[Anonymous Coward]

They are required to register them, via the FAA.

Re:Look a bit higher

[angel'o'sphere]

They're accustomed to flying *low*. En route between Stock Island and Marathon Key we flew so low over peoples' houses I could certainly have told what magazines they left out by the pool -- if we hadn't been going over 100 mph.
Don't get your point.
In most civilized countries exactly this is forbidden. And I would bet in a big deal of the USA as well.
So just he can get away with it makes it not "common law" or even allowed by the law.

Minimum flight height is several hundred yards (depending on local legislation), unless you are spraying, in process of taking off or landing.

Re:Look a bit higher

[ScentCone]

I think that people should be required to register their UAVs in the States

This is already the law, if the machine is over .55 pounds. So even small toys must be registered.

Re:Look a bit higher

[Anonymous Coward]

That's my point exactly. If you could just fly higher and get a bigger lens, all this privacy stuff related to low-flying aircraft is bullshit.

Re:Look a bit higher

[drinkypoo]

This is already the law, if the machine is over .55 pounds. So even small toys must be registered.

No, you are not even close. You have the number right, but none of the other facts. The drone operator must be registered, and he puts his UAS number on all of his remotely controlled flying machines over .55lb. Over 55lb, models require FAA registration just like an airplane, with a tail number and everything.

The FAA has just recently set up the guidelines for becoming a commercial drone pilot; prior to this if you wanted to engage in commercial activities with a drone, you were legally obligated to get a N-number just like a real airplane and put it on there in such a way that it was legible from the ground and all that jazz. Now that obligation has been relaxed in favor of a testing, registration, and background check process which appears to be heavily slanted towards the operation of fixed-wing drones and helicopters (as in, with a swashplate, not just any unicopter) as the test covers a lot of material that's quite irrelevant to operators of multicopters. There's only one type of registration and it covers you for anything you might want to fly. I believe (I'm a bit shaky on this news stuff) that within the size range, you only have to put your UAS label on the model, and you don't need a tail number.

Also, you are I hope aware that there are now FPV drones under .55lb?

Re:Look a bit higher

[hey!]

You miss my point: the law doesn't paint a bright line; it weighs factors like intent, circumstances and method.

Flying over other peoples' property in order to get to your target is a different set of circumstances than poking around on that person's property.

Re: Look a bit higher

[hey!]

Oh, for pete's sake you can't shoot people for trespassing on your property either, but that doesn't mean your property is fair game for anyone who wants to tramp around on it.

Re: Look a bit higher

[captaindomon]

This. The thing that most technical nerds (myself included) forget, is that the law is heavily constructed around intent. Doing the exact same things with different intent is different in the eyes of the law.

Re: Look a bit higher

[drinkypoo]

Oh, for pete's sake you can't shoot people for trespassing on your property either, but that doesn't mean your property is fair game for anyone who wants to tramp around on it.

That's a pretty great analogy, though. I wouldn't argue that invading someone's privacy or even just noise polluting their airspace isn't being a dickhead. I'd only argue that shooting down a drone with a shotgun when you could start a fire is being a stupid dickhead. It's also unnecessary. Odds are someone is just GPS drifting. If you think otherwise, gather some evidence like an adult. Nine times out of ten, the drone pilot is your neighbor, not a bunch of houses over. The further you get away from home around other people's houses and thus potential sources of interference with both your TX signal and with GPS, the greater the chance you're going to wind up leaving it in their yard or on their roof.

Re: Look a bit higher

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the poit, there are ways to deal with trespass.

Drones? The police have no idea of the norms.

Re:Look a bit higher

[ScentCone]

The over .55, under 55 pound RC aircraft must carry a registration number in plain site. If you own four of them, all four must carry that number. If you operate under part 107, all of your RC devices need their own unique registration codes. These aren't "guidelines," these are rules now formally in place with serious consequences should you blow them off.

Re:Look a bit higher

[drinkypoo]

The over .55, under 55 pound RC aircraft must carry a registration number in plain site.

Nope. It just has to be easily accessible. It can be inside a battery door if the cover doesn't screw on.

If you own four of them, all four must carry that number.

Yes. Which drives home the point that this is not a registration number for your model aircraft, but for the operator.

Re: Look a bit higher

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're trespassing for the purpose of burglarizing my property, I most certainly can shoot them. Even if they're fleeing the scene.

Missouri's "castle doctrine" law is a doozy.

Re:Look a bit higher

[ScentCone]

"Plain sight," as in "you don't need tools to get to it." The sort of thing any FAA inspector could simply walk over and easily see/get to.

Otherwise, semantics. You can't fly your over 9-ounce toy, at all, unless it bears your registration information. The uniqueness of the registration between someone's multiple toys is neither here nor there. It's "you can't fly your toy without federal involvement and a way to track the toy back to you via a publicly searchable database." That's what matters.

nice

[idha_koplak]

http://mp3oni.wapka.mobi/

Flyover Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who owns the air?"

There is no need to establish precedent, it's already been done. Prior to the 20th century property owner's rights extended infinitely upward, but in the 20th century as air travel became commonplace, Congress established property rights up to 500' above a person's property or 300' above the tallest building whichever is higher. Above that the FAA controls it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States

If the drone was over this guy's property, and it was close enough for a shotgun to take it out, then the drone operator legally trespassed on his property via already well established law, and he was within his rights.

this is a pickle.

[sucko]

gun owners vs drone owners in the fight for the bottom the barrel.

Who do you hate more?

One judge already ruled the act was justified.

[nbritton]

The drone's owner has now filed for damages in Federal Court over the loss of his $1,800 drone, arguing that the shotgun blast was unjustified because his drone wasn't actually trespassing or invading anyone's privacy.

The Drone Slayer was originally charged with felony counts of wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. But all of those charges were dismissed in October when a district judge ruled he "had a right to shoot at the aircraft."

It's true the Federal government has sole jurisdiction over US airspace, but that only applies to airspace above 499 feet. Furthermore, Causby v United States states that a landowner's domain extends at least up to 385 feet in rural areas.

Re:One judge already ruled the act was justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen "in rural areas" mentioned several times here... I lived as a child just a few blocks away, this is not a rural area. It's a subdivision, just barely outside the city limits of Louisville.

Not all of Kentucky is horse farms.

Re:One judge already ruled the act was justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's true the Federal government has sole jurisdiction over US airspace

"airspace" is not even required in this context. A federal judge has jurisdiction (albeit not absolute) over the US, period. You are starting at a HUGE disadvantage in a civil suite if a federal judge has already explicitly ruled that the defendant had the right to do the thing that they did.

Re:One judge already ruled the act was justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true the Federal government has sole jurisdiction over US airspace, but that only applies to airspace above 499 feet. Furthermore, Causby v United States states that a landowner's domain extends at least up to 385 feet in rural areas.

There's an important fact here. Here's the Wikipedia link to United States vs Causby (1946), which was a case where the US Government claimed a public right to fly over private land. The landowner (farmer) claimed damage and infringement. The Court decided landowners couldn't claim all airspace above their land, but could claim some of it.

Quoting Wikipedia:

By remand, the Court of Claims was tasked with defining the property that had been taken from Causby. The Court found the landowner's property to include the space between the altitudes from 83 feet up to 365 feet had been taken. Since the lowest flight was at 83 feet, and flight above 365 feet was lawful, only the property in between these altitudes required just compensation.

Re:One judge already ruled the act was justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

The drone was launched from a farm adjacent to the "subdivision". You wont see any of those in the city center. You wont see any of those in the suburbs. Being next to a commercial farm is sufficient to be called rural.

Re:One judge already ruled the act was justified.

[Anonymous Coward]

Myth #1: The FAA doesn't control airspace below 400 feet

Fact—The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up. This misperception may originate with the idea that manned aircraft generally must stay at least 500 feet above the ground

Or You Could Just Not Be That Neighbour

[christopherrto]

The root problem here IS NOT whether or not you can shoot aircraft, or where you should be able to fly drones, but whether or not it is legal to be a belligerent asshole. Even if the drone was over the shooter's property, was he in immediate danger? Doubtful. Would shooting it be effective way to protect himself if he was? About as effective as shooting the tires of a car headed for you. So then the only real thing he did was piss off his neighbour. That's not the way civilized adults should be handling their problems. Just like it was inappropriate for my neighbour to introduce himself by assaulting me and causing thousands in property damage, because he claimed my mufflered motorcycle was too loud and that's how asshole's solve their problems. INSTEAD we could try having a conversation about it. Then maybe I'd gear up instead of down everytime I drove by from then on, or flown my drone elsewhere instead of suing.

Re:Or You Could Just Not Be That Neighbour

[Anonymous Coward]

"INSTEAD we could try having a conversation about it. Then maybe I'd gear up instead of down everytime I drove by from then on, or flown my drone elsewhere instead of suing."

Your snowflake approach doesn't work. He didn't know who the drone owner was until they drove up and threatened him over shooting it down. By then all bets were off. With the range drones have and the ability the operator has to conceal themselves if they wish, it's a reasonable expectation you disable the threat first and hope the owner is stupid enough to come looking for the wreckage.

Re:Or You Could Just Not Be That Neighbour

[Anonymous Coward]

The other side seems to be arguing that because a drone may be used for spying, they have the right to protect themselves with their guns.
That the only perverts operate drones. This is such a myopic view of the issue that gets a much more complicated once we start talking about commercial drone delivers.

The reality is that the drone operator really does not give a shit about you and is just having fun, much like the loud car stereo crowd.

Re:Or You Could Just Not Be That Neighbour

[Solandri]

Yes we could try having a conversation about it. The drone owner could've asked the property owner for permission before overflying his property. He failed to initiate that conversation, believing that he could just fly wherever he wanted, everyone else's rights be damned. The property owner simply responded in kind. This tit for tat strategy turns out to be one of the most effective solutions to the Prisoner's Dilemma. At getting people to behave cooperatively.

I agree that just shooting the drone was a dick move. But it was the drone operator who made the first dick move. You shouldn't shoot first, ask questions later. But neither should you fly first, ask questions later.

Re:Or You Could Just Not Be That Neighbour

[silas_moeckel]

Yes you should be able to be a belligerent asshole on your property, this thing came into his space so he got rid of it. It's already settled case that it was OK for him to do so. Plenty of places to fly drones without bothering others. Hells I would be upset about drones that were going over the treeline with neighbors (thats 50+ ft high) if they were looking into my yard. Play with your toys responsibly or loose them.

Re:Or You Could Just Not Be That Neighbour

[Anonymous Coward]

"INSTEAD we could try having a conversation about it.

Any conversation about someone spying on my underage daughter while she's in her own backyard in a bikini will probably involve a shotgun.

Re:Or You Could Just Not Be That Neighbour

[djinn6]

This is not tit-for-tat, this is giving someone a weird look and getting punched in the face. Do you also murder someones entire family for cutting you off in traffic? The real tit-for-tat solution would be blinding the drone with a laser pointer.

In any case, escalation is pointless. If the drone operator was just as big of an asshole he'd go buy one of those superzoom lens that could film the house from a mile away, then publish any interesting tidbits anonymously. Or he could slash the shooter's car tires. Or steal his packages. Or poison the pool. Or just not call the police when the shooter's house is being broken into.

There are endless ways for someone to screw you over, and there are people crazy enough to do it. Why escalate the issue? Maybe if you treat them like a civilized adult, you could have a friend instead of an enemy, or at least a day at home instead of a day at court.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[Nemyst]

I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera. Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.

It's funny how you stereotype people who enjoy something extremely similar to what you do. There's plenty of people who enjoy drone flight for the sole purpose of flying, though the camera remains an integral part of the experience since it allows you to see your drone's movement from the first person. There's even drone agility competitions which are all about maneuvering drones on extremely difficult courses, not filming. Drones just have the ability to also take beautiful shots from high on up, but that's not necessarily their sole purpose.

Re: Difference between drones and RC planes/choppe

[bronney]

I totally agree on the fpv aspect. If you're flying and not hovering in people's back yard ;)

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[Anonymous Coward]

You know... all it takes is one counter-example to prove your statement false, since your statement is by its nature an absolute all or nothing deal.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[drinkypoo]

There's a fundamental difference between these so called drones and RC planes or choppers. Drone operators aren't interested in "piloting" . The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos and once that's the intention it changes the whole flight.

but...

I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera.

...yeah see, there's the problem. You can do the same stuff with an RC aircraft. So what, does that mean we should aggressively control everything that's not attached to a control line? Wait, you can use a kite for aerial photography, we're going to have to think this through a little more...

FPV is showing up on everything now, because FPV is now cheap. So if you want to argue that FPV should be the differentiator you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

Re: Difference between drones and RC planes/choppe

[bronney]

Fpv has been here for a long time. Why do you think this privacy thing just came out now?

It's the wrong intent that makes the real drone users look bad. My friend uses them to video shoot real estate for sale. And went through the right channels to get permission to hover in a residential area.

There are many fun things that we want to do. But it affects other people's feelings and that's why we don't do them. I would love to hover in people's backyard in fpv too but I don't do it because it invades people backyard. Not even privacy. Just the same as I don't sit on people's porch and have a smoke.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[bronney]

Good luck with the orientation of a DJI without camera then ;)

Re: Difference between drones and RC planes/choppe

[drinkypoo]

Fpv has been here for a long time.

It cost thousands to do well until recently. Now it's down to just a few hundred. That's transformative.

Air above your backyard is already public property

[ancientt]

TL;DR version: The "dystopian future has really arrived" because the US Supreme court disagrees with you.

your own house and garden suddenly become public places where your asshole neighbor can film you and your children

It's not happening suddenly. It happened twenty years ago.

Annoying people is sometimes illegal, sometimes not, but the law doesn't (and shouldn't) consider using "shitty tech gadgets" any worse than lawnmowers, drums, or a ladder. At the same time, the US has strong legal protection for people who want to take pictures, videos or otherwise gather information. You can't make it generally illegal do those things without infringing on the freedom of the press.

All the discussion about drones specifically is due to the human tendency to see actions as being tied to tools. It is the same fallacy that drives laws to be disproportionate where a crime is done "with a computer." Even if you get laws to protect your privacy in your back yard "from drones," you will still have your privacy invaded completely legally by people with actual airplanes, or ladders, or model airplanes, or mini-blimps.

The core issue is defining what the law should treat as your right to privacy. (Not what tools people might use to infringe on it.) So far, the courts have determined that you have property rights extending about to shotgun height above your property and you have the right to privacy where you are not visible or try to keep yourself from being visible from public property. (The air above your backyard is public property at sufficient altitude.) For example, it's perfectly legal to take pictures of your neighbors if they're in front of an open window (or their backyard.) It's illegal to take the same picture if they have blinds on their windows which are failing to actually hide the people on the other side. (Indeed, you in some states, even being naked at home in front of an open window is illegal.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[I'm New Around Here]

Test that theory. Print this part of the page out, take it to your next drone meeting, and ask everyone to prove bronney wrong by taping over their camera. Have every person fly simply for the pleasure of seeing a drone fly.

Let us know what percentage of your fellow operators are purists.

PS. I know this reads as pure snark, but I only mean it as one quarter snark, and three quarters real challenge of your claim.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[I'm New Around Here]

If you can only find one counter example out of millions of people, his statement is close enough to truth as to make no difference.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[wonkey_monkey]

The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos

No it isn't. I rarely use the non-transmitting crappy camera on my drone. I fly it because it's fun to fly.

Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.

No, some.

Of course the ones who've bought drones with good cameras are more likely to have bought them specifically to get video. But it won't be exclusive, and there are plenty of people with drones with no camera at all.

Re:Air above your backyard is already public prope

[BarbaraHudson]

Depends on where you ae. Here it's not. You can't even sit in your car across the street from your own house to spy on whether your spouse is cheating on you - and for that all you have to see is who enters or leaves the house, not what goes on inside.

We also put restraints on private investigators so that they are no longer allowed to spy on people either.

75 yard can be well outside most properties

[aepervius]

As you said there need to be a forensic examination to determine that, as it could have been a 45Â shot above his property limit downing the drone outside (so 40 feet or 12-15 meter outside the property).

i will tell you know what the solution will be

[Anonymous Coward]

since i can see the future and im super awesome

the kentucky guy wont be able to shoot drones flying over his shit

rich people will be able to shoot drones flying over their shit

thats all

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[Ost99]

Generalize much?
I own several drones, most of them can't use a camera. The one that has a camera is for FPV, don't know if it's even possible to record with it.

Enough with predators filing lawsuits already

[Anonymous Coward]

David Boggs (the drone owner) comes across as a sick pervert who likes to try secretly recording underage girls while they sunbathe in their own yards.

This isn't quite as bad as Jared Fogel filing that suit claiming his victims were at fault for "allowing" him to do what he did to them, but it's in the same ballpark.

Re:Air above your backyard is already public prope

[Anonymous Coward]

The case you cited had an airplane at 1000 feet. Yes it has been agreed for a long time that people can fly over you property at that altitude. It is incorrect to say that you don't own that space. If you can build that high then it's yours without obtaining any new deed. No one is particularly concerned about drones flying at 1000ft. Your pointing out the case while the case itself doesn't really address anyone's concerns seems deceptive.

Pheasant Hunting

[Roger W Moore]

Does it matter if the drone operator was in the wrong? That does not give the hillbilly permission to shoot it.

Why not? In most countries you are legally allowed to shoot game birds which are on your property provided that you do it safely. This even applies if the birds have been fed and raised and used to stock a piece of land for hunting e.g. pheasant woods in the UK. If the birds leave your land and fly over a neighbours that neighbour is allowed to shoot and keep the birds. If you fly a drone over someone else's private property why should the same rules not apply provided that it is shot in a safe manner?

Re:Pheasant Hunting

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter if the drone operator was in the wrong? That does not give the hillbilly permission to shoot it.

Why not? In most countries you are legally allowed to shoot game birds which are on your property provided that you do it safely. This even applies if the birds have been fed and raised and used to stock a piece of land for hunting e.g. pheasant woods in the UK. If the birds leave your land and fly over a neighbours that neighbour is allowed to shoot and keep the birds. If you fly a drone over someone else's private property why should the same rules not apply provided that it is shot in a safe manner?

Indeed, we can give all kinds of examples, analogies, and arguments that provide legal justification for this conduct.

For example, by forcing himself into somebody else's life, the drone operator was effectively stealing a portion of that life. Not much difference between doing that and kidnapping somebody at gunpoint: in both cases, a portion of a person's life, which is finite, has been stolen.

In both cases it's wrongful conduct. The homeowner certainly has a right to remove the problem in an expedient manner, and shooting the drone is a far better alternative from the point of society than shooting the operator. It's not a question of whether or not the operator deserved to be shot for sociopathic conduct, it's more a matter of expense to society: deaths are more expensive for society to resolve than mere destroyed property.

The right to not have one's time wasted also arises under the 9th Amendment, as a necessary consequence of the most fundamental and important rights "retained by the people", namely the right to ethical practice of law. After all, if people's time can be wasted by the legal system (or by actions of others condoned by the legal system), that creates an artificial demand for the services of lawyers. Further, if we are going to allow lawyers to assert that their time has value, then we must assign at least equal weight to the time of others as a matter of legal ethics.

Conclusion: attorney for the plaintiff doesn't understand what his oath to uphold the Bill of Rights requires of him (or her). He is violating the rights of the defendant "under the colour of law", and thus violating federal law that has been in existence since the end of the Civil War.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[Anonymous Coward]

Just hang around on the various UAV forums. There are complex reasons and rationale behind virtually any human activity. Some people like to fly, some like to photograph, some like to put things back together after unsuccessful attempts at either.

DJI, the dominant manufacturer in the sub $10000 UAV segment has managed to be fairly successful by putting together an inexpensive UAV that has a decent camera AND decent flying characteristics. I suspect this is why you're a bit confused as to the motivations of your 'typical' enthusiast. You don't exactly get a free lunch, but the fries aren't bad.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[ryanmc1]

Funny because my drone does not have a camera and I still enjoy flying it, I have a DJI Phantom 1. My kids have the really small drones, and they fly those all the time.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[ryanmc1]

I have a DJI Phantom 1 which does not have camera and I fly it just fine. There are lights on the bottom that tell you which direction it is facing. It also have a really nice switch that sets the drone into "Controller Lock" mode which means it will always fly in the same direction when you press forward, no matter what way the drone is facing.

Range

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can hit it with a shotgun, it's too close.

Re:Air above your backyard is already public prope

[Anonymous Coward]

SCOTUS is loathe to consider a ruling that might reduce people's ability to take pictures or otherwise engage in journalism. That's a good thing.

So the easy fix is for SCOTUS to also refuse to allow those journalists to prevent privately-deployed countermeasures.

That way, you can't call the cops on a drone operator, and the drone operator can feel free to get bent when you blow his toy out of the sky.

Remember, kids, freedom means everyone gets to be equally unhappy.

You little people cant be trusted with your toys!

[WolfgangVL]

In response to the rising threat of technology, we we will be raising the bar of entry into this field by requiring licensing on a per unit basis. If that's not enough to keep you normies from building aircraft yourselves, we will just have to make big scary noises and look really worried until your neighbors start shooting the things from the sky!

Silly civilians, don't you know that airspace and spying are for government and fortune 500 companies only? How dare you plebs build your own technology platform and attempt to use your obviously dangerous and scary creation in our skies. It's.....It's.... It's.... um... Ah HA! Its invasion of privacy! See!? Even your peers are not having this! We all know we are so interesting that you just cannot help yourself to taking a peek over our high walls. Why, just the other day another one of your scary death-copters was heroically shot from the skies behind my tennis court. The falling hardware could have damaged my new Tesla...er.. I mean kid, could have damaged my CHILD!... could have damaged YOUR CHILDREN! THREE CHEERS FOR THE DRONE SLAYER!

Drones are toys for the scaryiorist and pedophiles, now get back in line. Traffic is heavy today and you still have another 8 hours of productivity quota to meet.

Cletus, get yer gun...

[WolfgangVL]

Them city folks just said its ok fer ussin to be shootin up all them low flyin aeroplanes. Turns out them city-slickers been peepin out them windows into yonder bathroom window while grampa's a-poopin.

Re:Air above your backyard is already public prope

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Babs,

You forgot to mod this one up with your sockpuppet accounts. Just a friendly reminder.

Re:Air above your backyard is already public prope

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, sounds like someone got found out. :>

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[Anonymous Coward]

some like to photograph,

UAV that has a decent camera

6 sentences, and in 33.3% of them you mention cameras and/or photography.
Seems like it is probably a fairly large slice of the usage pie, bud.

Easy..

[SuperDre]

Just don't fly over someone's property without permission, it's that easy.. Also make sure you get permission if you point the camera at windows or balconies (especially if you're (live) streaming) etc..
Because YOU like flying drones doesn't mean you should be able to do it anywhere you want..

He faked the data file of the drone recording

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess in his attempt to show he never hovered over his house, he has had to make the drone travel at 56.3 MPH - This is over 20 MPH faster than the craft is rated for max v.

No wonder he didn't show the video right at the start, probably took a while to make all his changes fit into the crafts actual location.

I'd be suing this drone pilot.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[bronney]

Guys! This is awesome! Now all it takes is for one guy to fly a drone without a camera into "Drone Slayer"'s backyard. Hold hover for a few minutes and let him shoot it down. Then sue.

Profit??

Of course I know there are people flying without camera for enjoyment but those aren't the ones doing his backyard. The ones who fly it for fun for the joy of flying do it in safe areas, unlike me where a crash could have injured someone: Bad Example.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[Anonymous Coward]

And now there's a new agility test - avoiding outraged householders with shotguns :-)

Re:Air above your backyard is already public prope

[BarbaraHudson]

Not me. I'm not a stalker. I wanted to get as far away from my ex as possible - turned out I was the one being stalked.

Re:Difference between drones and RC planes/chopper

[Anonymous Coward]

None? I don't have any cameras on either on my quads. Millions are sold without cameras. "None" is so laughably wrong it's amazing you'd bother claiming something so absurd, which calls into question if you were truthful about having ever operated an RC aircraft in the first place or are just making that up to try and sound credible since your conclusion is demonstrably false and easily proven so by anyone who knows nothing about drones, just by shopping amazon or even their local brick and mortar walmart or whatever.

Abandoned Property

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like the drone wasn't in the owner's possession anymore. It was on the guy's land; it was abandoned property and he found it and did what he wanted with it.

I rule for the owner of the drone, which was the man who shot it with the shotgun. The person who abandoned his former drone on someone else's property is SOL.

The next big thing...

[BrianMahoney1357]

Nets, eagles, arrows...the next big thing is a drone killer that doesn't leave a trail. Damn sure the enemy is working on this but it won't be long until we have to work on this against whatever mutual enemy we have. In GOT they shot ravens as they left the castles. We're probably not that far removed from the Middle Ages, at least as far as drones are concerned. I'm guessing the next multi-billionaire warlord will be selling drone killers.

Compare to law & photography

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was in the 1970's that the Supreme Court ruled that if someone in a police plane or helicopter could see your marijuana field, it was considered to be "in plain site" and no search warrant was required.
Bringing in The First Amendment. Yep, really.
Okay, some of the following discussion borrowing established law regarding taking photos in public may apply very well, but some of it may not. This is not a definitive answer, but may be a starting place.
The concept of rights of photography overlap here. In general, photography is considered a right under The First Amendment. Drones have cameras, that may or may be recorded. Photography is considered equivalent to speech. If you as a photographer have a right to stand where you are, you have a right to take pictures. Recent attempts to stop such activity by police and owners of businesses have occurred. When courts have ruled on such cases, (police and businesses), mostly the photographers have prevailed. At least until this year, when a Federal Court (Fields v. City of Philadelphia) ruled 'citizen' photographers do no have that right. That ruling is limited in scope, and differs from most other court rulings on the issue.
Some owners of large skyscrapers have attempted to stop photography of their buildings on the basis that they own the rights to any image. Security around a skyscraper in Los Angeles some years ago arrested or attempted to arrest some photographers. When the police arrived they refused to further the arrest, let them go, and also refused to arrest any more people.
Police and private property owners also have attempted, and at times succeeded, in seizing cameras, equipment, film. That is private property; if law enforcement does it it need a specific legal reason: a private entity doing so is acting criminally--seizing or destroying property.
Doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time.
If you are on private property, the owners can prohibit or restrict photography.
An exception is in bathrooms, showers, changing rooms where people have an expectation of privacy and as one former Playboy model is learning, can get you charged criminally.
All the above was in place pre-cell phones.
So, putting drones into the above analysis would come up with the following conclusions:
1. if the drone is legal where it is, then you cannot stop is. The definition of the zones of legal have not been defined. Over a certain height over private property? Over sidewalks or streets? Or other zones of public space?
2. a. Confiscation or destruction: should a drone be considered a new technology, like a camera, that is protected as speech? In that case, no one has a right to seize, damage, or destroy someone else's property. The police can seize it with probably cause of a crime or with a warrant. If you take a camera into a shopping mall, movie theater, or baseball game, the owners can ask you to leave, but can't seize or destroy it (although movie theaters with people pirating movies by filming certainly try to seize them). All a private property owner can do is force you to leave. If you don't, you are trespassing.
2. b. So, if a drone is hovering over your window and it is over the sidewalk...is it legal to be there?
2. c. The drone is 10 feet, 30 feet, 200 feet up, and over your property line. Under this analysis, the property owner may have the right to say "leave or you are trespassing." At what height? How do you tell the drone operators, hold up a sign? But it appears under this analysis if the property owner damages or seizes the drone, like photo equipment, that is a no-no.
But, what do you do if a photographer or drone refuses to leave? Or keeps coming back?
2. d. The best I can come up with is a big net, to capture it. If you have one.
Let's say one day a bulldozer shows up on your property and starts to tear down your house. Wrong address. And you happen to have a bigger bulldozer, or an anti-tank bazooka (open carry state). I would thing destroying the bulldozer, private property, to protect your house, also private property, may be justifiable. Would it be less justifiable if the bulldozer is digging a small trench 200 feet from your house?
In 5, or 10 or more years, we will have our legal answers. Or not.
Don't forget, curtains.

Isn't it 500 feet?

[NoSalt]

I thought I read somewhere that a person's personal "property" extends 500 feet into the air.

follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

high profit margin IT companies and retail dropshipper outfits want to leverage drone tech to increase their profits. These companies are strongly invested in the current Administration in both monetary and "in kind" donations. They expect return on their investment.

Note that they will do the same in any "next" Administration as well, but the bottom line is not who they're paying off to protect their future "drone" projects from the dismayed or abused public, but who's doing the paying off.

If Amazon and Google and others of the Techno/Political Complex weren't so into "drones" there wouldnt be such a push to manage and protect them federally. they'd be treated like model aircraft had been handled for decades.