So, there was a RC "drone" hovering above my house yesterday...I was kinda pissed.
-
Those who are worried about being 'spied' upon are going to have huge issues. Surveillance from public spaces into your private space will be nearly impossible to block, it's unlikely that you'll want to, much less be able to build a 400-500 foot tall fence to prevent the currently considered legal ability to fly a drone in public space at 400-500 feet and take pictures of you.
-
Sounds like I'm going to have to start putting some clothes on in my garden then.
-
@Dashrender said:
Those who are worried about being 'spied' upon are going to have huge issues. Surveillance from public spaces into your private space will be nearly impossible to block, it's unlikely that you'll want to, much less be able to build a 400-500 foot tall fence to prevent the currently considered legal ability to fly a drone in public space at 400-500 feet and take pictures of you.
Very true and this has always been the case. But you used to be able to do things like have a fence or a roof and block line of sight from whatever you were concerned about. But now even if you have a high fence, a roof over a patio and no line of sight to any public space, a drone can wander your property and even go under a roof and join you.
It's only a difficult to define technicality that would stop a drone from being allowed to enter your house itself! And I'm not sure how one would strictly define which parts it can enter and which it can't given the current laws, other than needing to open a door. But what if a door was left open and it didn't bounce against any walls?
-
@Dashrender said:
No, and I'm not claiming they do - that is why I specifically mentioned keeping your drone over the street in front of or behind the house you want to surveil.
That's the big question, though. If a drone can do this and is exempted from trespass based on it being in the "airspace", then the thing that is being used to make that legal catches those other things too.
Basically.... a person leaping onto your property is not trespassing until they touch the ground, is what I am hearing being claimed. If that is the case, what if you shoot someone entering your property and they are over your ground but not on it (yet). What if they leap, they might "have been" trespassing but are not at the moment of the shot. This gets complicated when the airspace is a "safe zone."
-
Basically, they're going to have to come up with some new laws to cover drones, aren't they? You can't have strangers legally filming children playing in their own garden - it's not going to happen.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Basically, they're going to have to come up with some new laws to cover drones, aren't they? You can't have strangers legally filming children playing in their own garden - it's not going to happen.
You can in the US. It's very much allowed, sadly.
I think having laws "for drones" is the mistake. If we just had good definition of people owning their own airspace and trespassing in it being trespassing we'd be all set. If the existing laws were sensible and clear instead of murky and confusing I doubt we would need anything further.
All laws about drones are to give them more, not fewer, rights.
-
Exactly - so when they make a definite definition of what is your, the landowner's, airspace, say 100-200 feet seems more than reasonable, today, then drones would be trespassing inside that space.
I say 100-200 seems reasonable today because I can see a time when we develop anti-grav or whatever you want to call it and we can create large floating platforms... do you really want a large platform be allowed to hoover 200 ft over your home blocking out all the sun light?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Basically, they're going to have to come up with some new laws to cover drones, aren't they? You can't have strangers legally filming children playing in their own garden - it's not going to happen.
I can't speak for the UK, but it's happening right now. In the US if there is line of sight to those children from a public space, they most definitely can be legally allowed to be recorded/photographed.
-
It's probably the same in the UK. What happens is photographers just get hassled by the police who don't care about, or understand, the law.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
It's probably the same in the UK. What happens is photographers just get hassled by the police who don't care about, or understand, the law.
We have that same problem here.
-
@Dashrender said:
@mlnews said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Taking it down with a boomerang would be pretty cool. Though I'm sure that just because something is on your property doesn't mean you have a right to destroy it (in the UK at least).
In much of the US you can shoot PEOPLE if they are on your property and don't leave. Pretty sure in Texas you can just open fire. Just yell "get off my property" and if the drone doesn't run for it you are free and clear to open fire.
You're talking about the castle doctrine, right?
Can't do that here unless there's immediate threat of harm or death to you (to you only, not your property).
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@mlnews said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Taking it down with a boomerang would be pretty cool. Though I'm sure that just because something is on your property doesn't mean you have a right to destroy it (in the UK at least).
In much of the US you can shoot PEOPLE if they are on your property and don't leave. Pretty sure in Texas you can just open fire. Just yell "get off my property" and if the drone doesn't run for it you are free and clear to open fire.
You're talking about the castle doctrine, right?
Can't do that here unless there's immediate threat of harm or death to you (to you only, not your property).
I'm guessing that Scott has squirreled away somewhere a list of articles that show Texans just shooting anyone at any time for any reason and then getting off scott free.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Scott has squirreled away somewhere a list of articles that show Texans just shooting anyone at any time for any reason and then getting off scott free.
I can probably find an article that says I own the moon.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm guessing that Scott has squirreled away somewhere a list of articles that show Texans just shooting anyone at any time for any reason and then getting off scott free.
I can probably find an article that says I own the moon.
yes, but would it be a creditable source?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@mlnews said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Taking it down with a boomerang would be pretty cool. Though I'm sure that just because something is on your property doesn't mean you have a right to destroy it (in the UK at least).
In much of the US you can shoot PEOPLE if they are on your property and don't leave. Pretty sure in Texas you can just open fire. Just yell "get off my property" and if the drone doesn't run for it you are free and clear to open fire.
You're talking about the castle doctrine, right?
Can't do that here unless there's immediate threat of harm or death to you (to you only, not your property).
Texas allows property or even nothing more than "criminal mischief" if at night...
http://texasstatepolitics.blogspot.com/2007/11/to-shoot-or-not-to-shoot.html
-
Legality of flying it in XYZ place aside...
http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/faq.html
So jamming is kinda illegal, microwave guns are a cool idea on paper but suck in reality (I made one).
Only option I can see is to employ a kinetic energy kill. I'd suggest 12ga 3.5" magnum BB turkey loads with an extra full choke. Always know where the pellets are going to land.
-
@MattSpeller said:
Legality of flying it in XYZ place aside...
http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble/faq.html
So jamming is kinda illegal, microwave guns are a cool idea on paper but suck in reality (I made one).
Only option I can see is to employ a kinetic energy kill. I'd suggest 12ga 3.5" magnum BB turkey loads with an extra full choke. Always know where the pellets are going to land.
Hmmm.... this implies that Faraday Cages would be a problem then since it blocks and interferes with an authorized source, right?
The big question is.... is a drone considered an authorized or licensed station? Easily might be, but I have no idea if that is true.
-
@mlnews said:
Hmmm.... this implies that Faraday Cages would be a problem then since it blocks and interferes with an authorized source, right?
100% true. If you build a faraday cage around a radio station I promise you someone will call the cops
The big question is.... is a drone considered an authorized or licensed station? Easily might be, but I have no idea if that is true.
Show me the license you need to fly a drone.
-
@MattSpeller said:
The big question is.... is a drone considered an authorized or licensed station? Easily might be, but I have no idea if that is true.
Show me the license you need to fly a drone.
It's unlicensed for normal uses (hobby) and a major FAA license for commercial. The FAA license, I think, provides all kinds of restrictions so that is completely different, I would imagine.
Its the unlicensed use that is the question. Is "allowed" the same as "authorized" in a legal document?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@mlnews said:
Hmmm.... this implies that Faraday Cages would be a problem then since it blocks and interferes with an authorized source, right?
100% true. If you build a faraday cage around a radio station I promise you someone will call the cops
BUt we are talking about someone moving a radio station onto your property. Can you not interfere with a radio station within your own space? That's the question. The wording suggests "no", but that's hard to say as is it interference if you are only interfering in your own space? One could argue that the drone was interfering with your signals as long as they are legal on their own, which they would be if the drone wasn't there.
So the question is, do the rights of the drone supersede the rights of the homeowner as to the jurisdiction of radio waves in the airspace around your home?
