Drones are noisy by design to discourage poor behavior along those lines and render them useless for that purpose. The cameras have very wide angle lenses and you would need to be a few feet from a person to even take a discernible shot of them. Unfortunately, people have a perception that a unit over 100' in air is actually 10' above their heads, and everyone thinks a drone in the vicinity could only be interested in looking at them and them alone, which in my opinion is a pretty arrogant inflation of one's own self importance to think anyone would want to bother doing so. A drone at 125'-150' provides an image comparable to a Google Earth image at max resolution so its pretty tough to look in peoples windows.
Can a drone be misused to spy on someone? It really is extremely unrealistic due to the noise & camera design to do so. I believe the guys in Va ran away & took the loss on the drone rather than file a complaint because they were misusing it, however, Ms. Youngman (and you) should have called the police and filed a complaint against the operator rather than firing a weapon into the air (which is definitely not a good idea in general & irresponsible as hell in most areas). Irresponsible drone use is just as bad as irresponsible gun use and both should be prosecuted without question. Drone operators are required to register with the FAA for this very reason and are responsible for their safe use according to FAA guidelines and compliance with local privacy laws. Drones have no more than 20 min of flight time total, can be followed, & the operator with the big remote w/ the video screen hanging from his neck is usually pretty easy to spot so figuring out who is responsible usually isn't rocket science for a cop.
There was a case in Kentucky where a guy was arrested for shooting down a drone and was acquitted at the local level by a judge that has no business sitting on the bench and sent a signal to homeowners that it is ok to shoot guns into the air at drones (until someone gets killed by an errant bullet that is) and took witness testimony over electronic records recorded by the drone itself that is now pending at the federal level. The shooter took down the drone and stole the memory card out of the camera so any video of the event that might exist was destroyed (or so he thought) and threatened the drone operator with the weapon when he came looking for the drone (found in neighbors yard so it wasn't even over the guys house). He said the guy buzzed his house several times & was hovering 10' over his property watching his daughter sunbathing (under a canopy). Drone data said he was 272ft in air and footage was recovered from Tablet cache that makes an invasion of privacy claim pretty questionable in my book.
Hillview man arrested for shooting down drone; cites right to privacy
INTERVIEW: Drone owner responds to claims of privacy invasion
Judge rules man had right to shoot down drone over his house
After neighbor shot down his drone, Kentucky man files federal lawsuit
001 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Damages 2016 01 05 4849 6171 4476 1
Drone flight path data: https://i.imgur.com/dFZ5241.jpg
Drone Video of flight from Tablet Cache:
Now I ask you, Was this drone operator buzzing this guys house & creeping around looking at this guys daughter under a freaking canopy? Do you for one minute believe he wasn't the one who took the memory card from the drone as a trophy of his kill & to cover his tail end?
Personally, I believe he is right that bird shot probably would not have taken down the drone at 272'. That means he used solid shot. I think he got off a very lucky shot with the "open carry" Glock on his hip (he said the drone hovered long enough for him to get off three shots) rather than run inside for the shotgun during the 30sec the drone was hovering before it was shot down. This idiot could have killed someone and as a result of the judge's order to vacate the charges, someone else may because the judge gave them the right to fire on drones in Kentucky. The judge was reckless, biased & unfit to serve on the bench in no uncertain terms IMHO.
The outcome of the Federal case will be watched closely as this will be a precedent setting case, defining the extent of a property owners air rights & reasonable expectation of privacy vs the FAA designation of Drones as aircraft requiring FAA Registration & therefore allowed to operate in NAS & protected under existing anti-sabotage/interference laws.
I may not be happy with the outcome as a drone operator as I may lose NAS to fly in (right now as per 1946 Causby vs United States it is 83' with 100' AGL - 400' AGL being considered the safe operating altitude. I think they will probably raise that to 200' and call it done, but who knows? Personally I bought the drone for recreation purposes, but also thinking If I needed to inspect the roof or upper areas of a house for maintenance, storm damage documentation or for a potential purchase, I could easily do so-not to creep around looking at neighbors.
Last edited:
