Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Welcome DJI Spark Pilot!
Jump in and join our free Spark community today!
Sign up
Forums
General Forums
sUAV Rules & Regulations
Aerial trespassing?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I B Spectre" data-source="post: 115773" data-attributes="member: 18605"><p>Local authorities never cease to amaze me. They are often ignorant of over-arching laws/regulations and make their decisions with supposed impunity. I'm familiar with the Causby vs US case and it's not as clear cut as we would like. </p><p></p><p>While the statement was made that the FAA occupies the entire field of regulation of the national airspace, the state in which I reside also says "... that only the...Legislature can make laws concerning the use of drones in the state, but allows local governments to enact drone ordinances related to nuisances, voyeurism, harassment, reckless endangerment, property damage, or other illegal acts". Most of us think we understand what is meant by harassment, reckless endangerment and property damage, but they included nebulous terms such as nuisances and other illegal acts which can mean whatever the authorities want. The mention of voyeurism conjures up visions of an aerial peeping tom peering in windows and over fences when most hobbyist drones have cameras with somewhere like a 24mm equivalent focal length which is very wide angle and unsuitable for detailed surveillance in the outdoors, much less through someone's window. It's this supposed voyeurism potential that prompted the state legislature to pass a law that "...prohibits the use of a drone to capture an image of privately owned property or the owner, tenant, or occupant of such property without consent if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists". Never mind that someone with a cellphone camera or suitably equipped camera and telephoto can shoot pictures of the same privately owned property or the owner, tenant, or occupant without needing consent if they are positioned above ground level, say, in a multistory dwelling/building. I guess Google Earth is exempt because their photos of privately owned property are satellite based. Lucky they don't use drones.</p><p></p><p>No doubt the bad blood that already existed between the Inspire pilot and his cop neighbor set the stage for future problems and the fact that he had already been confronted for flying across a piece of the neighbor's land when he later flew over the neighbor's house added fuel to the fire. I hope he's able to win on appeal to squash the state's move to regulate use of the NAS. With luck, it will give the FAA an opportunity to send a clear message that no other level of government can take it upon themselves to overstep their jurisdiction.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I B Spectre, post: 115773, member: 18605"] Local authorities never cease to amaze me. They are often ignorant of over-arching laws/regulations and make their decisions with supposed impunity. I'm familiar with the Causby vs US case and it's not as clear cut as we would like. While the statement was made that the FAA occupies the entire field of regulation of the national airspace, the state in which I reside also says "... that only the...Legislature can make laws concerning the use of drones in the state, but allows local governments to enact drone ordinances related to nuisances, voyeurism, harassment, reckless endangerment, property damage, or other illegal acts". Most of us think we understand what is meant by harassment, reckless endangerment and property damage, but they included nebulous terms such as nuisances and other illegal acts which can mean whatever the authorities want. The mention of voyeurism conjures up visions of an aerial peeping tom peering in windows and over fences when most hobbyist drones have cameras with somewhere like a 24mm equivalent focal length which is very wide angle and unsuitable for detailed surveillance in the outdoors, much less through someone's window. It's this supposed voyeurism potential that prompted the state legislature to pass a law that "...prohibits the use of a drone to capture an image of privately owned property or the owner, tenant, or occupant of such property without consent if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists". Never mind that someone with a cellphone camera or suitably equipped camera and telephoto can shoot pictures of the same privately owned property or the owner, tenant, or occupant without needing consent if they are positioned above ground level, say, in a multistory dwelling/building. I guess Google Earth is exempt because their photos of privately owned property are satellite based. Lucky they don't use drones. No doubt the bad blood that already existed between the Inspire pilot and his cop neighbor set the stage for future problems and the fact that he had already been confronted for flying across a piece of the neighbor's land when he later flew over the neighbor's house added fuel to the fire. I hope he's able to win on appeal to squash the state's move to regulate use of the NAS. With luck, it will give the FAA an opportunity to send a clear message that no other level of government can take it upon themselves to overstep their jurisdiction. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Forums
sUAV Rules & Regulations
Aerial trespassing?