Idaho Drone Ban

[GMack]

Guess the P5 will need file encryption on camera sd card so they can't access the video files.
Maybe a mission impossible self destruct if cops try to read it without password.

I'm thinking a new remote transmitter with a "FLEE" button on it. (Flee and Land Elsewhere to Escape)

Once it lands, text message you the coordinates in a cryptic message as to where it landed for recovery. "Hi! I'm Candy. Looking for a good time? Come by my house at 107 Main St."

 

[Roadking]

Can't wait to see the lawsuit.
Idaho v. Google Earth

 

[Roadking]

Bama Mania
You can fly your drone all you want. The law is related to privacy issues. Many states have the same law. All it means is that you can't use your drone specifically to infringe on someone's privacy.

(2) (a) Absent a warrant, and except for emergency response for safety, search and rescue or controlled substance investigations, no person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to intentionally conduct surveillance of, gather evidence or collect information about, or photographically or electronically record specifically targeted persons or specifically targeted private property

Have fun flying.

 

[BamaMania]

Yeah, I'm not in favor of that word "specifically targeted" either. Another one of those gray legal matters where Joe Smith could say: "That drone guy had his drone right in my face, and targeting me and my family or house." and then you get into the "He said. She said." stuff with some cop or judge (Who may not like drones either.).

I dunno where this is all heading, but I think the guy who said keep buildings and people out of the shots in Idaho and you 'might' be safe. Unless someone thinks your targeting their private property without consent when they spot you flying over it.

What a state. Welcome to the new and improved Idaho.

Yeah, the wording is wishy-washy enough where I could fall victim to the interpretation of whoever, but really all I have to do is get to a point where I feel like I'm compliant with the law. After much consideration, there are two aspects of the law that I feel like gives me a moral out, if not a technical letter-of-the-law out as well. First is the "specifically targeted" verbiage. If the subject of my photo or a video is a person or their property who has provided consent, then I'm obviously specifically targeting them and can't be specifically targeting anyone in the background. In my own words, those individuals or property, are incidentally targeted. Also with wildlife, it would be obvious that I'm specifically targeting them (and they are not property of anyone who could sue me), and therefore, cannot be specifically targeting someone's property or their person.

The other clause in the law is that you can't photograph a person or property "for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph or recording". I do believe it would be nearly impossible to determine that my purpose was to publish or publicly disseminate, unless I actually did that.

Failing all of that, flying drones is legal. It's the photography that is not. I do not see how they could determine that I actually engaged in "photography" unless they had a warrant.

 

[BamaMania]

Can't wait to see the lawsuit.
Idaho v. Google Earth

I had the same thought for about 2 days, then I realized that there is an exception in the law for unmanned aircraft systems used for mapping. I also thought about making a label for the side of my drone that says, "Used for mapping". Think that would "fly"?

 

[vashon100]

(Not replying to anyone specifically, just a comment) A lawyer might interpret FPV as surveillance even if the record button wasn't engaged.

 

[BamaMania]

(Not replying to anyone specifically, just a comment) A lawyer might interpret FPV as surveillance even if the record button wasn't engaged.

Ugh. I suppose that is true.

 

[NetDep]

Politicians pretending to do something about a nonexistent problem affecting a population so small as to not matter.....typical chicken salad politics....but Idaho? Really????? [emoji53]

 

[foolyo892001]

Hmmm to me this doesn't mean you can't fly in Idaho, it clearly is aimed at preventing people from spying/ invading privacy.

"intentionally conduct surveillance of, gather evidence or collect information about, or photographically or electronically record specifically targeted persons or specifically targeted private property"

To me this is clearly to prevent people like these SHARK people(who really should be kept from having drones)

"specifically targeted persons or specifically targeted private property"

This would not include anything being filmed by happenstance I.E people on the ground flying high above. And furthermore this does not include PUBLIC spaces such as state parks and federal BLM land in the state.

"without such individual’s written consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph or recording."

this is really grey area, because certainly the intent of the law is to prevent people from invading privacy, If they intended to prevent people from using drones they would just ban the unlicensed use of drones outside of private property. I don't think anybody will ever get trouble from a cop because they are flying at a park and people end up as little pixels in the video. None of this law applies to flying around natural landmarks, parks, mountains ect where people are not present, A place like Twin Falls snake river and Shoshone Falls is totally legal to fly and film.

 

[BamaMania]

Hmmm to me this doesn't mean you can't fly in Idaho, it clearly is aimed at preventing people from spying/ invading privacy.

"intentionally conduct surveillance of, gather evidence or collect information about, or photographically or electronically record specifically targeted persons or specifically targeted private property"

To me this is clearly to prevent people like these SHARK people(who really should be kept from having drones)

"specifically targeted persons or specifically targeted private property"

This would not include anything being filmed by happenstance I.E people on the ground flying high above. And furthermore this does not include PUBLIC spaces such as state parks and federal BLM land in the state.

"without such individual’s written consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph or recording."

this is really grey area, because certainly the intent of the law is to prevent people from invading privacy, If they intended to prevent people from using drones they would just ban the unlicensed use of drones outside of private property. I don't think anybody will ever get trouble from a cop because they are flying at a park and people end up as little pixels in the video. None of this law applies to flying around natural landmarks, parks, mountains ect where people are not present, A place like Twin Falls snake river and Shoshone Falls is totally legal to fly and film.

Was just talking about taking my bird down to Shoshone this morning! I think that might be my weekend adventure!

 

[swtc]

Hello from Idaho. I'm a new drone owner, as of two weeks ago. Today I discovered Idaho State Law 21-213. It appears to make all drone photography illegal. Which is typically my luck in life. Anyone familiar with this have any insight to share? ...or know anyone who wants to buy a very slightly used P4P?

How much do you want for your P4P?

Also, I might suggest that you carry around a signed piece of paper, worded very simply, giving permission from the "targeted" person you're filming. Show that to anyone that has a problem: It's against the law to target a person for surveillance without their knowledge/permission. So get permission from someone so you've got something to show anyone that's up in your business. ("I'm not filming YOU! I'm filming *this* guy!")

 

[dronexchange]

Florida has a similar privacy law, but it applies only to sUAVs. Which I find odd because helicopters can do this no problem. Also, the Florida law is civil only, meaning no criminal action by police. A person can sue the sUAV pilot for damages.

 

[cr6]

I fly commercially in Idaho Falls and have never had a problem. The law states that you need written consent so I created a document which I have the home/landowner sign if I intend to film their property. (as others have stated, "flying over it" is another story) Out of the hundreds of businesses and properties I've filmed, I've only had a couple of occasions in which the property owner didn't want me filming their property. I have found that most people are very accommodating once you explain to them what you're doing and I usually end up spending a good 20-30 minutes talking to them about my drone. IMO helping to "educate" the public is a responsibility that comes with being a drone operator in this day and age. (especially a commercial operator like myself) Being able to walk away having them no longer being "afraid or leery" of drones is a great feeling and I think if more drone operators would do this every chance they get, we could help change the negative image that John Q Public has towards commercial/hobby drones alike.

 

[Mo of Pocatello]

I fly commercially in Idaho Falls and have never had a problem. The law states that you need written consent so I created a document which I have the home/landowner sign if I intend to film their property. (as others have stated, "flying over it" is another story) Out of the hundreds of businesses and properties I've filmed, I've only had a couple of occasions in which the property owner didn't want me filming their property. I have found that most people are very accommodating once you explain to them what you're doing and I usually end up spending a good 20-30 minutes talking to them about my drone. IMO helping to "educate" the public is a responsibility that comes with being a drone operator in this day and age. (especially a commercial operator like myself) Being able to walk away having them no longer being "afraid or leery" of drones is a great feeling and I think if more drone operators would do this every chance they get, we could help change the negative image that John Q Public has towards commercial/hobby drones alike.

Hi,
I've been too busy to do much flying, but today I went out to Massacre Rocks SP. Not seeing any signs against flying it, I started flying my P4P using DJI GO 4. First of all, strangely enough, even though I wasn't in Beginner's Mode, my altitude was limited to 30m and the distance was also limited, to something not much greater!! My distance limit setting wasn't on, and my height limit was set to 120m. Also, landing was very slow and jerky. Any clues what might have gone wrong?

Anyway, here's what happened after 2 useless brief flights: a park ranger came over to me and politely said I couldn't operate one of these in an Idaho state park. So there ended my flights. I was planning on flying around 200 ft. above the river or at least next to it! I asked him why there weren't signs against flying these things, and he said the technology was too new (for Idaho state park people anyway). I guess once I figure out the range limitation problem and the strange problem landing (which actually started some time during July), I can fly on a non-state-park part of the river.

 

[Just Mark]

I agree with the postulations that these laws were put in place in response to S.H.A.R.K. and other animal welfare groups.

It would be interesting to know who supported this legislation (as in, who are the people donating to the individual politicians who brought the legislation).

My guess is that it was not supported by groups that are concerned for the privacy of individuals.

I think it would be much more likely that it was supported by businesses that are trying to manage their online reputations.

 

[Mo of Pocatello]

I want to know why jet skis are allowed but not quadcopters.

 

[snuxoll]

I'm over a year late to the party here, but I was literally just searching for information on drone usage in Idaho State Parks and stumbled across this thread. Two things anyone looking for information on drone usage in the state of Idaho should know.

1. Idaho Code 21-213 is unconstitutional, and even then the penalties are civil, not criminal, meaning to even get fined (and end up needing to fight in the court system to get the law overturned) somebody would actually need to go through the hassle, time and money to file against you. It's pretty unlikely anybody is even going to bother filing a civil suit in the first place, the one exception being commercial livestock/dairy operations that pushed our stupid state legislature to pass the ag-gag bill (which was struck down early this year to my knowledge).

2. Usage in state parks is entirely up to the park manager, as is all "non-traditional recreational activities". Technically, if you launch from outside the park and fly over it there's nothing they can do as the national airspace system is under the FAA's jurisdiction, but you're going to have fewer issues and protect the reputation of the community by just asking the park manager first. I have no experience doing this, yet, but the park staff are generally friendly and accommodating as long as you are respectful of them and the park - be aware that the park is a shared resource and ensure they know you will be operating in a manner to protect the enjoyment of others at the park, you may very well get their go-ahead. For your reference, this is in the Idaho administrative rules 26.01.20 section 401 (here's the URL for the rules if the forums won't eat it: https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/26/260120.pdf).

 

[Nightwolf]

If you are shooting something specific it should be obvious from the video that you weren't specifically targeting" anyone; unless you were. Pointing the camera and hovering is different than flying over. The term "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies here. As long as you aren't capturing "behind the fence" scenes they have no legs.

Nightwolf<<also not a lawyer

 

[Nightwolf]

****, duped by an old thread

 

[snuxoll]

If you are shooting something specific it should be obvious from the video that you weren't specifically targeting" anyone; unless you were. Pointing the camera and hovering is different than flying over. The term "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies here. As long as you aren't capturing "behind the fence" scenes they have no legs.

Nightwolf<<also not a lawyer

The language about specifically targeting individuals basically only matters to operations by law enforcement or their contractors.

Idaho 21-213 (2)(b) is the real kicker: No person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system 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.

AKA "You can't record **** without getting permission from the individual that may even inadvertently be in your shot". Such a restriction is blatantly against the first amendment, unless the individual is somewhere they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (inside their home or a business, and there's even arguments to be made when your blinds aren't drawn) you are allowed to record or photograph anything visible from a public space (which the national airspace also is).

****, duped by an old thread

One of the top google results on the topic, better to contribute to it than create a new one.