Casual FAA Violations

[tcope]

Idaho is one of those locations that have a state law related to UAS operation. Mostly geared toward privacy concerns (i.e. no video or pictures of private property without written permission)

I'm not even sure I want to take the time to look this up as I suspect it's incorrect. In the US, public is public and taking pictures is a right allowed under the Constitution. If you care to provide a link to what you think is this law, please feel free to post it.

I did do a quick search and found a few "news" sites that mentioned this. However, none provided links and only linked the this type of restriction applying to law enforcement (which serves to only limit the governments use to circumvent current surveillance laws).

For example:
State legislation governing private drone use

"Idaho’s law sweeps more broadly. It bars people from using drones “to photograph or otherwise record an individual, without such individual’s written consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph or recording.” The law, which would undoubtedly face constitutional challenges if enforced, allows a person to file suit and recover either $1,000 in statutory damages or “actual and general damages,” whichever is greater, plus attorney fees and “other litigation costs reasonably incurred.”"

As you will see, this article links to a non-existent page about the "law". However, it also states that it has some Constitutional issues... as I mentioned.

 

[FishGeek]

Here is a link to the State statute....and I agree with you regarding what constitutes one's right to record audio and/or video while operating in a public space.

Section 21-213 – Idaho State Legislature

My understanding is that the intent is the limitation of law enforcement/governing body, but the statute, as it is written, includes the phrase 'any person'. I also think that this and other similar laws definitely have the potential to set a legal precedent, and may be ultimately found to be unconstitutional, as written.

I am not going to be that precedent ;-)

There is also a statement indicating that a UAS does NOT include "Model flying airplanes or rockets ... used purely for sport or recreational purposes". Additionally the prohibition is limited to "specifically targeted persons or specifically targeted private property". The problem with both of those statements is in one's (specifically the charging administration's) interpretation. It seems to imply that a drone is not considered a "model flying airplane or rocket" and does the burden of proof regarding whether or not the electronic recording in question constitutes specifically targeting a person or their property.

I have absolutely no intention of spying on my neighbors but who gets to decide what my intention was? This is also a civil violation and not a criminal violation so that leaves a bit more open in terms of interpretation.

Just to be clear, I agree with you 100% about the Constitutional issues, specifically due to how it is written. Not to mention the potential conflict related to FAA rules, since they are the authority when it comes to issues of airspace regulation. If it were a bit less ambiguous and more narrowly scoped, it would remove some of that grey area of interpretation...but again....I don't want to be the guy that has to go through the headache of being the first enforcement.

I'll have to search a little more to find the ordinance related to flying in Julia Davis Park, which borders the City Zoo.

 

[FishGeek]

UAS Operation Rules - City of Boise

So...on second look...the city Parks & Recreation Dept. 'requests' that no one fly and states that citations 'may' be issued...so not a law or city ordinance necessarily but definitely potential to catch some grief.

 

[Steven Graham]

The last few posts illustrate the importance of concerned citizens in the law making process. A couple years back we had similar legislation rearing it's head in Colorado. In touch hobbyists found out. The proposal would have had severe impacts on our freedoms to fly in CO. A large group of us showed up at the hearing to express our concerns. Primarily that there are already federal rules and jurisdiction in place to cover aircraft and that the ACLU's privacy concerns over government eavesdropping not end up trampling individual liberties to take photographs. Due to ours as well as many other stakeholders concerns the proposed legislation never made it out of committee though I'm sure they'll try again.

Only through continuous vigilance can we prevent ill conceived laws from making their way into the books.

 

[FishGeek]

Maybe I should try a long distance flight to Denver...lol

I'll check out the range discussion area and see if I can get an RC that will let me fly a couple thousand miles. ;-)

 

[FishGeek]

BTW...tcope

I appreciate your request as it caused me to take another look. I hate misquoting things and that typically only happens when I'm in a hurry or making statements 'in passing'. Always good to have a more thorough follow up because it makes me look a little harder and engage in some critical thinking.

 

[Steven Graham]

UAS Operation Rules - City of Boise

So...on second look...the city Parks & Recreation Dept. 'requests' that no one fly and states that citations 'may' be issued...so not a law or city ordinance necessarily but definitely potential to catch some grief.

City of Denver has also banned flying from any of it's parks. Not much you can do when the property owner tells you this One tactic that has been used with varying degrees of success is talking with and showing local politicians the benefits to the community of having a couple designated spots where people can fly.