Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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."
"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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.