Got my 1st taste of Drone hate...


Last year I purchased reasonably-priced video editing PC software called "Wondershare Filmora." One of the great features it has is the ability to create "snapshots" while reviewing your videos. I no longer try to hassle with PS3 photos interspersed with video. How this ties in with the thread is that it allows your flights to be one continuous motion and probably not arise the ire of neighbors, especially flying at 250'-300'. Something you might want to consider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ifly2high
While all the posts were on the OP side, all seems to know the drone owners' right. All seem to forget the definition of privacy. Taking a photo of private property or person without permission is a privacy issue. If someone's backyard is in your picture and you do not ask for permission, you have a privacy issue. If someone's face is in your picture and you have not asked for permission, that person has the right to be removed from your picture. If you don't, you are breaking the law.

Really that is the law? If it was so then all those famous photo's taken by paparazzi would be illegal and they are not. 1st amendment rules.
 
I know the feeling. I have a mavic pro and phantom 4 pro, i live in Florida and i spend a lot of flying time on the beach or in the area of the beach and i have a lake near my house that i fly around a lot. Well just 2 weeks ago i was on the beach with the mavic and i was in between changing batteries at my truck when this couple with 2 kids comes passing by, the husband and first kid walk by and wave. The wife though gives me the dirty eye for about 10 ft before saying " i hope you weren't video taping my kids playing in the water" Now I'm a pretty nice guy but this made my blood boil. I took a deep breath and said man I wasn't even near you or your children. And I don't like insinuations that I'm a phedophile , I'm a drone enthusiast. I don't take pictures of kids or people really. Sometimes people get in a picture but I normally inform them prior. She stomped away thinking she did something. I spend a lot of my flying time showing people that i come in contact with how the drone regally works. The camera doesn't have infinite zoom, and its so loud that there's no way you wouldn't hear it if it was stationary or just in the air period.the phantom i can hear at 300ft.I haven't gotten a visit from the police yet though, i did go around my neighborhood and let people know its just me and i will show them the pictures anytime.
 
As a retired Air Traffic Controller, I'm here to say that many of those Skyhawks, Skylanes, and Centurions flying overhead ARE taking detailed imagery for the likes of Google, Bing and other 'Organizations'. I spent the better part of 32 years facilitating their photo tracks and orbits at very specific, sensor friendly altitudes. It's not the drones folks. It's everyone else. :)
 
Just show them your pictures and that none of them are zoomed in pics of the neighbors daughter in her bikini sun bathing. People see a drone and immediately think it's spying on them.
If they're paranoid enough to think that you are spying on them, they are also capable of believing you wouldn't show them the 'juicy' shots you 'really' took. I would recommend you start building a case for the inevitable, when your drone is shot down. Then YOU call the law and file charges against your neighbor. They will say you were taking videos. THAT is when you reveal them, in a court of law.
 
While all the posts were on the OP side, all seems to know the drone owners' right. All seem to forget the definition of privacy. Taking a photo of private property or person without permission is a privacy issue. If someone's backyard is in your picture and you do not ask for permission, you have a privacy issue. If someone's face is in your picture and you have not asked for permission, that person has the right to be removed from your picture. If you don't, you are breaking the law.
I would tend to disagree. There is 'no expectation of privacy' in the outdoors. Golly, think of the situation that would develop during your vacation if you took pictures. Has anyone else, besides this good fellow here, run around with release forms for folks to sign?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: planedr
If someone's face is in your picture and you have not asked for permission, that person has the right to be removed from your picture. If you don't, you are breaking the law.
Not to pile on but in the United States, no, that is not the law.
 
As a retired Air Traffic Controller, I'm here to say that many of those Skyhawks, Skylanes, and Centurions flying overhead ARE taking detailed imagery for the likes of Google, Bing and other 'Organizations'. I spent the better part of 32 years facilitating their photo tracks and orbits at very specific, sensor friendly altitudes. It's not the drones folks. It's everyone else. :)

/Back in college days, I made money by flying pipelines. there was one part of route where as I flew over a young lady was almost always sunbathing nude in her backyard and the first time I flew over she RAN. After several flights, she became accustom to my flights, all at about 100 ft/ I started taking my camera with me and got some fabulous pictures with a 135 m/m lens. Still admire them today. You could almost count the (well you get the idea) I figured out her daily times and revised my flights to accommodate it. She even started waving at me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmysWoodshop
I want to tell you all one important thing. People do like privacy and we must respect it. I do not mind to see drone over my house, because I love drones, but I hate other things, like kids running around my property or noise coming from neighbors, dogs barking non stop etc. Drone for someone like all these things for me.
 
While all the posts were on the OP side, all seems to know the drone owners' right. All seem to forget the definition of privacy. Taking a photo of private property or person without permission is a privacy issue. If someone's backyard is in your picture and you do not ask for permission, you have a privacy issue. If someone's face is in your picture and you have not asked for permission, that person has the right to be removed from your picture. If you don't, you are breaking the law.
Would you be so kind as to cite the statute you refer to that would be broken? (HINT: Call the local po-po and ask them.) Be sure to report back on your findings. Thank You!
 
As this is logically a pro-drone site, consider from a non-fanboy's relatively neutral observations. First, the right to privacy/invasion of privacy concerns predate drones by a few hundred years. When a neighbor undresses in an open window directly facing your property, they cannot claim you are peeping - unless/until you are caught taking pictures.
"As drone pilots with cams, we have that magic ability to take people visually where they have never gone before." The simple act of flying 50 feet up introduces a tremendous temptation to take a few shots - but violates the privacy of neighbor's activities, whether benign or not.
"this BS 9km/5mi rule from ANY airport... which means entire towns are banned by default, and if you have a hospital with a helipad in it, say goodbye to legal flying as well." When the first documented crash of any copter or plane, even worse an emergency aircraft, is attributed to a drone flown illegally, prison time will ensue, I guarantee. FCC rules are not frivolous.
There is a playful anarchy in drone groups akin to old RC aircraft groups, which also have abided by regulations for decades; the difference seems to be far more drone fans refuse to accommodate and respect the rights and boundaries of others. Last week I was a mile and several hundred feet up a dune in the Great Sand Dunes National Park, when I heard a "giant mosquito" sound; sure enough, there came a drone hovering thirty feet over us for several seconds. Guess what is a felony punishable by jail time and a $5,000 fine? That's right, flying a drone in a National Park.
Drones are being rapidly segregated into professional and recreational, i.e. expensive toys. Pros will be obliged to get licenses, register, pay fees for access rights just like grownups in most every other arena. Amateurs must abide by limits, or pay for the pro upgrade with attendant responsibilities.
You can be a grownup, or a kid. Pick which you want to be known as.

1st point - Oh yes, they can claim you are peeping, but if they are in an open window,etc., you can take pictures. The pictures will show your exhibitionist neighbor. Make a complaint, they are exposing themselves to the public, no?. You never mention the sex of your exhibitionist, but we all know male and female exhibitionists are treated in drastically different manners. Hmm, an angle not considered, eh?
The rest- I like anarchy. I do not associate with bluenoses who cannot wait to 'run to the teacher' and go tell on Jimmy. I'm live and let live, but actions may have consequences. The drone was too close to you, without question. If they were running FPV, even more so. But why shouldn't I have access to the beautiful vistas that can only be achieved by aerial photography. You guys are really going to go nuts if they ever develop the air car, like Moeller's, aren't you?
Remember, when the car was first invented, a man had to precede the car on foot, carrying a red flag so the horses wouldn't get scared. The current drone 'rules' are much like that. I'm a grown-up kid who needs not heed your command to 'pick'. I am not defined by you although your words provide more definition of yourself than you may have cared to admit. Keep your clothes on in an open window!
 
Would you be so kind as to cite the statute you refer to that would be broken? (HINT: Call the local po-po and ask them.) Be sure to report back on your findings. Thank You!
Don't you know that taking someone's picture is stealing their spirit? All animation suddenly leaves their body and they start to wander zombie-like.
;-)
 
While all the posts were on the OP side, all seems to know the drone owners' right. All seem to forget the definition of privacy. Taking a photo of private property or person without permission is a privacy issue. If someone's backyard is in your picture and you do not ask for permission, you have a privacy issue. If someone's face is in your picture and you have not asked for permission, that person has the right to be removed from your picture. If you don't, you are breaking the law.

Go take it up with Google then.

No really. They have pictures of everyone's back yards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WWI Flying Ace
It's not the noisy toys with a tiny camera on them they need to worry about. It's the grey ones from the government you can't see or hear that are the problem, or the mapping services as mentioned before. I'm pretty sure almost all of the occupied land in the country has been photographed by now. But the general public is too stupid and uninformed or brainwashed by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc. to make an intelligent argument about it. They should watch the news when they have the helicopters up. When the camera zooms out and they are 1000 yards away but you could just read the license plate of the car they are chasing. What about those?
They have always painted these in a negative light, even when the stories of them interfering with flights has been proven false, never anything about when someone uses one to locate lost people or pets.
I've run into those people who try to accuse me of peeping on them but I just tell them they are too ugly or not interesting enough for me to waste the space on my memory card. Never to be bothered by them again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WWI Flying Ace
It's not the noisy toys with a tiny camera on them they need to worry about. It's the grey ones from the government you can't see or hear that are the problem, or the mapping services as mentioned before. I'm pretty sure almost all of the occupied land in the country has been photographed by now. But the general public is too stupid and uninformed or brainwashed by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc. to make an intelligent argument about it. They should watch the news when they have the helicopters up. When the camera zooms out and they are 1000 yards away but you could just read the license plate of the car they are chasing. What about those?
They have always painted these in a negative light, even when the stories of them interfering with flights has been proven false, never anything about when someone uses one to locate lost people or pets.
I've run into those people who try to accuse me of peeping on them but I just tell them they are too ugly or not interesting enough for me to waste the space on my memory card. Never to be bothered by them again.

There are earth ground based telescopes that can read the writing on a nickle on the surface of the moon. And people are afraid of some random guy with a mini flying helicopter down the street spying on them lol...
 
It's not the noisy toys with a tiny camera on them they need to worry about. It's the grey ones from the government you can't see or hear that are the problem, or the mapping services as mentioned before. I'm pretty sure almost all of the occupied land in the country has been photographed by now. But the general public is too stupid and uninformed or brainwashed by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc. to make an intelligent argument about it. They should watch the news when they have the helicopters up. When the camera zooms out and they are 1000 yards away but you could just read the license plate of the car they are chasing. What about those?
They have always painted these in a negative light, even when the stories of them interfering with flights has been proven false, never anything about when someone uses one to locate lost people or pets.
I've run into those people who try to accuse me of peeping on them but I just tell them they are too ugly or not interesting enough for me to waste the space on my memory card. Never to be bothered by them again.

I think most people can rest assured that if someone wants to "watch them", the ideal platform isn't going to be one of our quad UAV's hovering overhead sounding like a nest of highly PO'd Hornets at any altitude close enough to obtain high res. photographs/videos of them. Depending on where they are, those " grey cameras" connected to the right hardware/network are quietly taking their photo, then running them thru facial recognition software and notifying those interested within seconds.
 
"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."
 
Flying over someones house does not mean you are filming them either. :)

Rand Paul can say what he likes. That is his right. But he does not control the skies either. Now that ISP's can gather and sell your net data why be concerned by someone flying a drone to film a sunrise or a sunset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WWI Flying Ace
Now that is a good response!
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,094
Messages
1,467,602
Members
104,980
Latest member
ozmtl