I think I can reply with much more economy: Are you a lawyer?
You try hard, citing one case out of a plethora of lawsuits filed daily.
Quoting Florida law and Rand Paul? That speaks for itself. Crackpot city.
Regardless of Paul's words, if the po-po wants to fly over your house they can. In fact, that is what he refers to in your quote.
Paranoid dweeb.
You try hard, citing one case out of a plethora of lawsuits filed daily.
Quoting Florida law and Rand Paul? That speaks for itself. Crackpot city.
Regardless of Paul's words, if the po-po wants to fly over your house they can. In fact, that is what he refers to in your quote.
Paranoid dweeb.
"The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another’s home or office.” Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971).
WWI flying ace, for a non-lawyer you are mighty quick with opinions about your rights to infringe on others. Quick searches provide far more insight and actual legal advice, of which I include a few below.
A number of states including California and New York have statutes recognizing privacy interests. California amended its constitution to include a right to privacy, recognized common law rights of privacy, and enacted several statutes to protect privacy interests, and also wisely recognizes that individual privacy interests are susceptible to assault from high-tech devices. Several states have specifically outlawed the use of drones to violate privacy, and existing privacy laws can also potentially cover misconduct engaged in by people and businesses with drones. Thus, under the current legal landscape, companies that use drones may indeed face liability if accused of violations of privacy. ref: When Your Drone Prompts a Violation of Privacy Suit, Will Your Insurance Cover It? - Policyholder Advisor & Alert
Interestingly, insurance companies are very focused on drone liabilities, and these websites offer succinct advice and warnings regarding drone usage and misuse in the coming years:
If you invade someone's privacy with a drone, your insurance might not cover it
1. Intrusion upon seclusion Highlights:
A leading treatise defines intrusion upon seclusion as a tort in which one “intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” ... For example, using a drone to hover outside someone's home while using the drone's mounted camera to peer into a window without that person's permission could subject the drone operator to liability for common-law intrusion upon seclusion.... Florida's Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act prohibits the use of a drone “to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person's reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent.”...Under the statute, “a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.” The prevailing plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages and injunctive relief to prevent future violations against the offender, plus reasonable attorney's fees....The courts would almost certainly be willing to permit a victim of drone-stalking to pursue a civil action under state civil-stalking statutes.
This link shows how seriously the insurance industry has anticipated evolving drone issues and potential for litigation:
10 risks and misuses for drones
Last, although speaking in regard to drone use by government agencies, by logical extension why not let Rand Paul's words from June 2012 apply to civilian use as well?
"Flying over our homes, farms, ranches and businesses and spying on us while we conduct our everyday lives is not an example of protecting our rights. It is an example of violating them. The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy. I do not want a drone hovering over my house, taking photos of whether I separate my recyclables from my garbage. When I have friends over for a barbecue, the government drone is not on the invitation list. I do not want a drone monitoring where I go, what I do and for how long I do whatever it is that I'm doing."
