Bad wording for future drone laws!

[dangerd]

Very bad wording from the Tort Law Relating to Drones Act Drafting Committee if this made its way to the final draft then there will be no cameras in the sky at all. I advise everyone to keep an eye on this committee as this is not the first mistake they have put to paper and their work will inform OUR laws in the future.

SECTION 8. INVASION OF PRIVACY BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.
(a) An unmanned aircraft can be an instrumentality by which an invasion of privacy can be committed under the law of this state.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) of this subsection, a person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy by an unmanned aircraft if:
(A) the person intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft that captures any type of audiovisual image, recording, or other impressionof an individual on that individual’s property; *Yes, thank you.
(B) the person operates the unmanned aircraft in a manner that a reasonable person would believe that the operator had the intent to capture audiovisual image, recording, or other impression without consent[, such as through hovering or repeated flights]; and
(C) the capture violates of the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy on the individual’s property.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, an individual is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the individual’s property if the individual 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 an unmanned aircraft.

(3) A person shall not be liable under this paragraph if the capture is:
(A) Otherwise protected by the First Amendment or conforms to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, warrant, or other order issued by a court; or

(B) Necessary for the safe operation or navigation of the unmanned aircraft.

You can follow their work here: follow committee

 

[Ansia]

For my next hobby, I'm going to pick up baking cookies. Hopefully they won't make laws up about how the smell of my cookies make people hungry and cause them to have accidents and ban that as well...

 

[430Ferrari]

LoL — this is hilarious

“...well-conceived AND well-drafted legislatin...”

Who are they kidding? Yes, they will ban the cooking of chocolate chip cookies next.

Uniform Law Commission The Uniform Law Commission (ULC, also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), established in 1892, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.

 

[430Ferrari]

*legislation

 

[dangerd]

For my next hobby, I'm going to pick up baking cookies. Hopefully they won't make laws up about how the smell of my cookies make people hungry and cause them to have accidents and ban that as well...

This is the best reply I have sent very had to a post!

 

[2edgesword]

There have been court cases that have established that another person having a camera pointed at your home is not a violation of the homeowner's privacy rights. The specific incident I remember is a person that had their security camera on a pole and overlooked his neighbors yard. The court ruled that the person with the camera on their property pointing in the direction of his neighbors yard, able to capture video of what occurred in the neighbor's yard did not violate the neighbor's privacy rights. Outside your home, even in your fenced in back yard, there is no legal expectation of privacy. Taking video through a window inside your house would be a privacy violation.

 

[Ansia]

There have been court cases that have established that another person having a camera pointed at your home is not a violation of the homeowner's privacy rights. The specific incident I remember is a person that had their security camera on a pole and overlooked his neighbors yard. The court ruled that the person with the camera on their property pointing in the direction of his neighbors yard, able to capture video of what occurred in the neighbor's yard did not violate the neighbor's privacy rights. Outside your home, even in your fenced in back yard, there is no legal expectation of privacy. Taking video through a window inside your house would be a privacy violation.

Yes, but you will have to challenge this in court. I don't have that kind of money or time. Thank god I live in the last colony of the world, and my legislators are more focused in stealing money, than making drone laws.

 

[dangerd]

There have been court cases that have established that another person having a camera pointed at your home is not a violation of the homeowner's privacy rights. The specific incident I remember is a person that had their security camera on a pole and overlooked his neighbors yard. The court ruled that the person with the camera on their property pointing in the direction of his neighbors yard, able to capture video of what occurred in the neighbor's yard did not violate the neighbor's privacy rights. Outside your home, even in your fenced in back yard, there is no legal expectation of privacy. Taking video through a window inside your house would be a privacy violation.

Yes this is true, but the only way to stop them from writing a bad law is to say something about it before it gets written and passed.

 

[THA]

What country, state or province is this pertaining to??

Meaningless to me without knowing if it applies to me

 

[dranders]

Yet I can fly a helicopter without altitude restrictions (other than being able to land without hazard with a power plant failure) over private property. Or a fixed wing a mere 1000 feet above. Lower if i’m landing. I’ve talked with people on the ground from an altitude of only a few hundred feet while flying balloons over urban areas. Maybe if enough of us get licensed and/or responsible some of these knee-jerk laws will go away.

 

[2edgesword]

Yes this is true, but the only way to stop them from writing a bad law is to say something about it before it gets written and passed.

I'm not disagreeing with you. If they write a law that says a drone cannot video what is in public view (the security camera incident appears to support the idea that the front and back yard of a home are places in public view) it would be in conflict with past court rulings. In practical terms what you can see from a height of 15' can be seen from a height of 150' or 1,500'.

 

[dangerd]

What country, state or province is this pertaining to??

Meaningless to me without knowing if it applies to me

This pertains to the whole of the United States of America. If you live here be involved.

 

[N017RW]

Mountain out of a anthill.

 

[dangerd]

Mountain out of a anthill.

You say that now, but when they put something in there that hurts your ability to fly how you want in the future, you will cry about it then. So many people in this forum whine about how unfair the laws are but don’t take the time and effort to try to make them the way they should be written. I’m just encouraging everyone to get involved and watch out for our interest while we have a chance.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

Mountain out of a anthill.

It really is!!

For starters, it says "law of this state". To me, that means it's not nationwide. But even if it were nationwide, the word intent or intentionally is used multiple times. Incidental recordings, i.e. I'm doing a site survey and capture your house in the background, is not covered by any portion of the above law.

 

[dangerd]

It’s a draft, not law yet. If it is written badly then we will end up having to spend money to defend ourselves in court. Better to get it right and save the trouble.

 

[dangerd]

It really is!!

For starters, it says "law of this state". To me, that means it's not nationwide. But even if it were nationwide, the word intent or intentionally is used multiple times. Incidental recordings, i.e. I'm doing a site survey and capture your house in the background, is not covered by any portion of the above law.

NIMBY says you had intent, guess what, now you have to spend your cash to defend in court. Sure would be nice to avoid the trouble by getting this thing right in the first place. Also this is only one section of a bunch of bad stuff, some that has already been fixed because of people who paid attention, but other sections could use tweaking too.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

NIMBY says you had intent, guess what, now you have to spend your cash to defend in court. Sure would be nice to avoid the trouble by getting this thing right in the first place. Also this is only one section of a bunch of bad stuff, some that has already been fixed because of people who paid attention, but other sections could use tweaking too.

I get what you're saying and the purpose of your post. It's something new to me and I will be keeping an eye on it. And you're right, it is just a draft. Most of what they're saying is already on the books in most states, they just don't have the word drone or sUAS in it.

HOWEVER,
(3) A person shall not be liable under this paragraph if the capture is:
(A) Otherwise protected by the First Amendment
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that photography and video recording from a public location is a protected act.

One thing people/pilots may want to consider is a pilot protection plan which offers legal consultation/assistance for FAA enforcement actions or civil penalties.

 

[N017RW]

It’s a non-profit thinktank at best.

Ever heard of the ULC before dredging through the intranet for drone terms?

No!

Nothing to see here.

 

[Dpanetta]

I seem to remember reading in the history books where it was a capital offense punishable by death by burning at the stake in Salem for a woman to use a broom while wearing a pointy hat too!!!