Gov Scott signed off on it... Effective July 1st

[PaganLinuxGeek]

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/0766/?Tab=BillText

 

[RoyVa]

The noose is getting tighter and tighter.

 

[Torcan]

"with the intent" to conduct surveillance without his or her written consent

as long as there is no intent, and it is just a fly over on the way to somewhere else, like most of us do here, I see no running afoul of the law.

 

[Hjones62]

I'm glad i don't fly a drone, the last time I checked we fly quadcopters

 

[tcope]

This only applies existing laws to drones. Nothing is changing.

 

[Torcan]

I'm glad i don't fly a drone, the last time I checked we fly quadcopters

and where the courts are concerned, it is all in the language and the use of a word which makes or breaks a case.

 

[DevildogSoldier]

The problem is that you may very well beat the charge, but you'll still get the administrative fun associated with the charge.

And this all assumes that the system plays "fair". Prosecutorial discretion, judge's interpretation, etc.

 

[tcope]

The problem is that you may very well beat the charge, but you'll still get the administrative fun associated with the charge.

And this all assumes that the system plays "fair". Prosecutorial discretion, judge's interpretation, etc.

While I agree with the premise of this post, they could / would charge a person even without this law. You can't film or photo someone without their permission when they are not in a public place and have an expectation of privacy. This law just makes it clear that this applies to drones as well. As well it should.

But a agree 100% with were you are coming from when something like an illegal law makes you guilty until you prove the law is illegal or does not apply.