It’s pretty much the meat and potatoes of science fiction, particularly science fiction that is neither Galactic Space Opera nor Alien Invasion: A new technology appears and humans react to it in various ways that display their humanity or lack thereof. The number of tropes associated with this plotline is virtually without end, although the movie Chappie works pretty hard to cram every one of them into a hundred minutes or so.
As the pace of change in our current nonfictional situation accelerates, however, many of us are likely to find that same sci-fi plotline directly impacting our personal lives. Consider how many marriages were obliterated by Facebook’s decision to allow non-students. It’s kind of staggering if you look back at it. Hundreds of thousands of people used FB to hook up with their ex-girlfriends and high-school crushes and so on. The existence of a website, a thing that has very little reality in the conventional sense attached to it, directly led to broken homes and suicides and miserable children and lifelong trauma.
Yes, before you ask, I did hook up with a few people off Facebook. I’m not proud of it.
Well, I’m still pleased about a few of them. There was this blonde…
So, consider this sci-fi scenario: A robot appears in the sky and begins photographing your neighbor’s daughter as she sits out next to your neighbor’s pool. Then it drifts over to your pool and your daughter. What do you do?
I’ll tell you what they do in Kentucky: they load up a shotgun with a #8 bird shell and you blast that mother out of the sky. So. Was he right or wrong? It’s very interesting to see the jobs listed by the people on both sides of the debate. It’s not quite as simple as “tech geeks think drones should be allowed to photograph anything they want” and “families are terrified at the idea of being stalked by drones” but it’s not not that simple, if you get what I’m saying.
My opinion is that if there’s a drone over your house you should be allowed to destroy it. Even if that drone belongs to a local, state, or national government. What say you, dear readers?
I’m assuming you’ve experimented and discovered that # 8 buckshot works better than the grapeshot was used when I was a lad….
I think drones are pretty cool I watch racing video shot from one but I’m on your side about then not being allowed to hover over my property .
-Nate
The question I would ask is “what is privacy in the 21st century?”. Personally, I think you have a right to privacy for anything you own. If someone’s drone goes over your property and starts snooping… you should be able to block or destroy it. I still think it’s odd that we have to deal with these sorts of issues. I probably just grew up knowing I was going to get my ass kicked if I didn’t ask for permission to go fishing or even step on someone else’s property. Common courtesy says you should ask before even crossing a neighbor’s property. These days, kids go from yard to yard without even asking to pick their ball up. I don’t really know where I’m going with on this other than drone users should ask permission if they are going to film or photo property and people that are not themselves.
Sick freak pedophiles can “shop” for rape victims. Shoot the effers down!! Poor kids are surely traumatized & they committed a crime. BY ALL MEANS shoot it down and arrest the voyeristic sickos for peeping Tom, as this a precursor to RAPE! Look it up.
Pedophiles can already shop. It’s called facebook and your child’s school’s social media.
you should be able to. notable that the guy was arrested because he discharged a firearm in a residential area (which would get me pinched as well where I live) and not for destroying the drone.
it pisses me off. I run and race R/C vehicles, but I belong to a national sanctioning organization and two clubs, and have learned to operate them safely and in appropriate places. These douchebag bros who buy these things and fly them anywhere and everywhere are giving the rest of us a bad name. it’s already hard enough to find places to run legit R/C events because of 90 year old milkshakes who demand the entire world be silent.
#8 is a light upland bird (dove, grouse) or sporting clay shot, as you know, Jack.
Some of those drones look fairly sturdy, so the Benelli Super Black Eagle would be brought to bear with my go-to goose load, triple BBB in 3 1/2 inch magnum.
Have you seen the video where a young man managed to remotely fire a 9mm pistol from his drone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBBC-xL_MTg
Now we’re beyond the creeper stage and into something far more disturbing. Remote, lethal drone attacks have been limited to the purview of military capabilities, but now even a high school kid can figure it out.
The law is probably on the side of the drone operators. A property owner’s has only limited airspace rights, while there is a right to photograph and film what you choose. (Publication would be another matter.) The owner could impose restrictions upon those who were on his property, but the drone wasn’t on his property.
The technology is more advanced than the law. The law needs to be changed because the laws were not written with this in mind. It’s not a constitutional matter; there needs to be a new law to restrict it if that’s what we want to do.
public airspace starts at 500 ft. per the FAA.
Sort of. The FAA has defined “navigable airspace” for manned aircraft, and wants to reduce it to less than 500 feet for drones.
I don’t think that the courts have affirmed that there are specific air rights based upon a fixed distance from the ground. It’s illegal to fly too close, but what that means isn’t specifically defined.
Yes, and some big corporations are proposing rules to regulate airspace below 500 ft — rules which I suspect have little to do with protecting one’s personal privacy on his/her private property, but rather rules which support the free flow of commerce:
First, there’s Google’s plan:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2954752/government/google-wants-order-in-uncontrolled-airspace-so-its-wing-drones-can-fly.html
And then Amazon’s:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/28/amazon-autonomous-drones-only-airspace-package-delivery
However, it won’t be long till we have a case which will force the courts to interpret the privacy issue. As more and more paparazzi use drones to “spy” on the rich and famous, it won’t be long till someone with very deep pockets sues the pants off a publication, think John Travolta v The National Enquirer. And each side will appeal it up (depending on how the lower court rules) until we get some legal precedent re drone privacy.
Until then, we’ll see more drone defense systems like those employed in KY. Though it would seem that the courts are siding with the drone drivers so far (the shooter’s fault, in this case, was he waited until the drone was back over his neighbor’s property when he shot the thing down):
http://petapixel.com/2015/06/29/man-wins-lawsuit-against-neighbor-who-shot-down-drone-with-shotgun/
I would expect that the courts would generally find for the drone operators, as expectations of privacy are fairly limited. Hence the need for laws so that privacy rights are codified.
Regarding existing laws, and Jack’s original question (Do Creeper Drones Have Rights?) here’s where we stand now:
federal law (18 USC § 32)
(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.
Because drones are a new technology, they’re lumped in with all aircraft, from helicopters to Cessnas to 747s. The law hasn’t yet caught up with the concept of a remotely controlled flying robot yet. One that can hover above private property, look through windows, etc where one would have an expectation of privacy.
As PCH says, until the law catches up with the technology, the courts really have no choice but to side with the drone operators. And the cops legally have to arrest someone who shoots down a drone (and that’d probably be me, were some idiot using a drone to film my underage daughter at the pool or pretty much anywhere else — even if it’s legal for someone to do so).
And even if we get a new law, one must prove intent on the part of the operator. Drones are used by surveyors, news departments, law enforcement, film makers, fire departments, environmental agencies, as well as enthusiasts/hobbyists. So say someday the law is codified to prohibit the use of a drone to spy/film/photograph someone on their private property, one still would have to prove intent on the part of the operator. And local gun laws regarding the discharge of weapons in residential areas still apply (very illegal).
Lots of complicated technical and legal issues to resolve, certainly. But still, my gut reaction should continuously hover above my kids, pointing a camera at them, is to shoot it down, call my lawyer, and wait for the cops.
Some folks don’t seem to grasp that they don’t have the rights that they think that they do. This is the sort of thing that Congress would need to fix, while taking care to avoid violating the first amendment.
From what I’ve read, personally-owned drones without an FAA certificate of commercial operation are treated like toys by federal courts. I agree with you that some sort of laws will have to be put in place. The current legislative climate virtually guarantees that any such laws will favor corporate interests over personal ones — so it will probably be legal to hover above open-air showers while it will be illegal to come within a thousand feet of, say, WalMart’s distribution centers.
In this case, the core issue is the first amendment.
Others have a right to look at things. They also have a right to capture those images and keep them for themselves.
But they don’t necessarily have the right to sell or distribute them without your consent if you are on private property. The commercial nature of the image restricts what they can do, as there is no first amendment to profit or attempt to profit from another person’s image on private property.
The issue should ultimately come down to how identifiable the subject of the photograph happens to be. You have no claim against a satellite image that depicts you as an unidentifiable spec in your yard, but you have more of an argument if some of your features can be made out.
So you’d argue that if I managed to long-lens a shot into a nine-year-old girl’s shower, despite reasonable precautions being taken by her parents, that I have a right to keep and use that photo?
Or, to take the appeal to emotion out of it, that industrial espionage is fundamentally legal?
We have separate laws against child pornography. There’s no first amendment right to that.
You can’t break into a company and steal its files, so that isn’t allowed, either.
On the whole, photography is generally protected by the first amendment. Perhaps it shouldn’t be, but it is.
This 500ft. should be over-ridden when it’s used as a remote peeping Tom, especially on children in their homes, and on their property.
This has me curious to know of other sex crimes committed with the aid drones.
If the government is operating the drone, I’d guess the Open-fields doctrine applies unless the pool is fenced in and out of public view.
If a private party is operating the drone, it may considered be an abatable nuisance for which one could seek damages.
There’s no clear harm. Just because you don’t like being filmed doesn’t mean that someone else can’t film you.
There’s a near infinite number of soft-porn style websites featuring underage girls in various modes of dress, bikini swimsuit being one such style. So, would you want pics of your daughter, who never left your fenced yard, circulated across the internet as soft-core semi-illegal underage porn? For profit? I think there’s a clear and visible harm here.
Previous cases of public video recording resting on the fact that there’s no clear expectation of privacy once you leave your property. There is a clear expectation of privacy while on one’s property, especially in most classic sub-division settings.
If it was “clear and visible harm”, then your favorite people wouldn’t be losing lawsuits and getting prosecuted.
The law needs to redefine those rights so that it accounts for technology that did not exist when these laws were created. Right now, the law doesn’t define them in the way that you would like, nor is there a clear constitutional argument for taking your position. This has to come from statute.
I should also note that there is a legal distinction between taking a picture and publishing it. I can film you all day long, but I can’t publish it without first obtaining a model release from you if you were on private property at the time.
The law isn’t so clear cut on THAT. If you’re caught taking “upskirts” of women, or doing long-lens shots on a beach, you’re going to talk to the cops:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/man_57_arrested_after_snapping.html
The cops used the idea of “alarming the public” to arrest him.
Texas court throws out ‘upskirt’ photo law
In an 8-1 ruling, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said photos, like paintings, films and books, are “inherently expressive” and, therefore, are protected by the First Amendment.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/State-appeals-court-rules-upskirt-law-5763225.php
______________
“Massachusetts court says ‘upskirt’ photos are legal”
The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude.
“A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,” wrote Justice Margot Botsford of the state Supreme Judicial Court.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/us/massachusetts-upskirt-photography/
______________
“Judge rules man who took photos up ladies’ skirts at Lincoln Memorial didn’t violate their privacy”
“This Court finds that no individual clothed and positioned in such a manner in a public area in broad daylight in the presence of countless other individuals could have a reasonable expectation of privacy,” wrote D.C. Superior Court Judge Juliet McKenna in her ruling
http://wjla.com/news/crime/judge-rules-man-who-took-photos-up-ladies-skirts-at-lincoln-memorial-didn-t-violate-their-privacy-10
Perhaps it’s in your spam filter, but I’ve provided some links to court decisions in Texas, DC and Massachusetts that ruled in favor of public upskirt photography based upon the first and/or fourth amendments.
Thank God Pch101 is here to take up the pervert’s cause. Such a breadth of knowledge, too! Perhaps you have a portfolio?
Yes, let’s shoot the messenger for providing the facts.
Yes, by all means we have a right to privacy on our own property. However, shotguns against drones is so passé.
We need a cheap electronic jamming/magnetic pulse/circuit frying pistol that drops these suckers out of the air like a dead duck. It would be handy to use them against Go Pro cameras and cell phones also.
I think you can reasonably replace “drone” with “camera being used by a stranger”.
If someone walks onto your property without your permission with a camera, you should be able to destroy the camera and any pictures taken with it.
Since public airspace doesn’t start until 500ft, I can’t imagine he’ll get into any legal trouble for the destruction of the drone if it was his property - Just for discharging a firearm where it isn’t permitted.
The real question is what’s the best legal way to destroy nosy drones, not whether or not you should do it.
Shoot the damn thing down,while its on the ground shoot it again.Just in case its wounded and might try to charge you[ you have to anchor these beasts].
If no one is watching snatch the thing up and throw it in the trunk of your car.
The next time you are near a homeless shelter or housing project just drop it off.
The police will believe someone stole it and couldn’t sell it.
Answer no questions you are not obligated to talk to the police beyond identifying yourself.
His problem was he thought he was right and In this NEW AMERICA right is only relative
I’m sure this father would love the opportunity to apologize in person to the owner of the drone. In fact, he’s probably begging the cops for the address to help right this wrong.
Apparently when the owners of the drone showed up he drew his Glock 40 at them and told them there was going to be “another shooting”.
This, as the Bard says, becometh a man.
Hahaha! Good ol’ Bard Simpson!
I think the technology for self-defense drones is going to catch up very quickly.
Or we could mirror the gun control advocates and hold the manufacturers responsible.
Why not airsoft or a pellet rifle? A paintball gun could probably take one down.
No firearm, no cops, no problem.