Aerial drones and property rights - where should they meet?
A pretty good debate in recent Wall Street Journal article here. As someone who is part of the commercial aerial drone revolution, yet who also will respect property rights of everyone involved, we will need to figure this out. Hopefully the laws and regulations will accommodate and respect property rights of everyone involved. I'm not sure yet what the ideal solution should look like honestly. http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-yo...
PULL!!!!
My high powered bird-shot rounds self identify as trans-caliper measuring devices.
As with computer security, I don't think most people can protect against the government (again, if they care enough to look), so I wouldn't bother trying. But there are plenty of other potential threats we can and should protect against.
If I were to dream up a new money making enterprise, it would be to devise a way to void intrusive devices. With such a product, the demand would be quite high. I offer this idea freely and for only 10% of the net.
one before they're outlawed, sir! -- j
.
However, I'm not about to be standing guard with my handy-dandy laser 24/7. I'm thinking more of something you can set up and then leave it to do its job without you being bothered.
and make it a sport if you become annoyed. . ours
is next to the refrig on the counter! -- j
.
Or not.
sir -- ve hav vays to make you talk .. who put you up
to these shenanigans?! -- j
.
Was your mom from Poland?
Your repartee and sense of humor is so much like mine that we must be related. Your wife, like mine, is probably an expert at eye rolling.
from poland! . one, who speaks 6 languages, can
roll her eyes with the best of 'em! . the BW can add
spice to any conversation, while rolling her eyes! -- j
.
Speaking of eye-rolling, one of the disadvantages of living this long is when I tell a golden oldie, they not only roll their eyes, but finish sentences as well.
that symptom is growing. . we try to be fresh and
creative ... oh, well!
when she finishes a sentence better than I would have,
I roll my eyes, trying to look like her! -- j
.
By the way, will there be another Hank Rangar novel?
I don't see why the minimum ceiling restrictions placed on all aircraft should not apply except when operating a personal drone over private property with the landowner's permission. At the very least drones should only be allowed to fly over private property at altitudes too great for their cameras to gather detail sharper than google earth is allowed release. Technology should not allow one to effectively relocate their eyeballs and place them somewhere where they can violate your expectation of privacy in order to avoid physical trespass, yet accomplish the same violation. It is analog with allowing them to place hidden cameras on your property. In many states/cases this would violate "Peeping Tom Laws." http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/busi...
Whether personal aircraft or government, the law is in flux, but it should not be so. It should adhere to previous decisions and respect the spirit of the Katz v. United States decision. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/v...
Unfortunately over time the courts have not been consistent in upholding the spirit of the forth amendment and protected our reasonable expectation of privacy and this new technology will only exacerbate the problem and expose the failure of our courts. If drones with powerful cameras are allowed to overfly your fenced, private back yard and view your activities without your knowledge and consent, they have clearly been allowed to violate your expectation of privacy. It will give the voyeurs carte blanche.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Yes, we must get used to cars on the public right of way, which we as a society all need and enjoy. However, we adjust, build and choose our property according to our needs and desires based on existing conditions; that includes privacy. People choose, or are raised in environments with different amounts and expectations of privacy. Public property is public; private property is private.
I have lived most of my life in a very rural setting. I have a driveway and a sidewalk to my front door where you will find a doorbell. I expect the occasional stranger, or delivery person to use those facilities. My back yard is fenced and surrounded by woods, except for a gated walkway down to my lake frontage. I do not expect to find people there without my prior knowledge and approval. I have the right to ask them to leave, I expect them to take their eyeballs with them. No? Now, some people live in the city right on top of each other and have different expectations. A jury of my peers made of local rural folk deciding what is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" may not be the same as a jury constituted of New York City folk. For me when it comes to privacy and the forth amendment, I will decide in favor of the privacy of the citizen.
If Amazon wants to deliver by drone to my house, they haven't seen what my dog, if not restrained, does to a vacuum cleaner. :) Yes it will get worked out and I suspect what sounds like a good idea may turn out very differently. Now as far as delivering say, emergency supplies/medicine, to remote locations, while flying at a respectful altitude between... fine. Disturbing the peace, harassing livestock, or spying on your neighbor, etc., ... something will surely be worked out, but the drone owner may not approve, regardless of law.
Regards,
O.A.
Fair enough. I am good with emergency vehicles going about their business and I am not a fan of amazon, but my Wife is. That said: unless it is an emergency, I am good with standard delivery. The neighbor's photo drones, if disturbing the peace or worse, deserve to be taken down, by whatever means you feel justified in. If I am out hunting and my prey is not dropped immediately and manages to run onto someone else's property before falling, I have no right to trespass and retrieve it. Likewise, if someone's drone falls on my property (regardless of reason) the owner will have no right to trespass on my property to retrieve it. I see no reason why personal drones should not be treated the same way radio controlled hobby planes have been in the past. Friends of mine with remote controlled planes and helicopters have to fly them in places where they do not disturb their neighbors. Common sense and consideration for others is what is necessary. I do not think we needed the federal government to require registration. If your neighbor is disturbing you with their antics, you should be able to use existing law to have them cited for disturbing the peace at a minimum, or applicable peeping tom laws. If someone can turn the tables on the voyeurs, video the offending drone in action over their property, blast it with a shotgun and bring it down, then I believe their own video evidence should indemnify them. A shotgun would most likely be the gun of choice for such a purpose and most rounds in a 12 gauge shotgun have an effective range of much less than 300 feet. Drones flying higher than that will be hard to take down unless hovering and a rifle in skilled hands is used.
How's that?
Regards,
O.A.
You are welcome. Yes, I think a conversation needs to be had with those that wish to operate such devices and common sense and consideration for your neighbors should be at the forefront. I believe existing laws that cover disturbing the peace and peeping tom laws should be sufficient, but I am willing to consider all concerns and arguments.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I think we need a ceiling of 400-500 ft, until the drone reaches the target area and then it descends vertically to it. It should respect property lines during the descent and later ascent after the delivery. There shouldn't be any reason to dilly-dally around or wander around into other people's property lines. If it works well, it will be too fast for anyone with a gun. But I expect there will be people that set up automatic anti-drone systems that will cause signal or control interference with the drones if they have nearby neighbors, so this is going to be an issue that gets the lawyers and insurance companies (and lawmakers) involved. That's my prediction.
If they can only fly 400-500 ft, ok. If they want to land regularly, ok. If they have less reliability and may drop on property or people, ok. All these intrusions are for the benefit of the operator and perhaps the clients of the operator, but are at the expense of others. If they fall, do naval rules for salvage apply?
Identical laws for government and private citizens and companies.
Nicely put in a nutshell.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Then...if you do see one hovering over your house or in your window, you can assume it's government...and shoot it down.
Too bad Ayn Rand never addressed this issue. :-)
As technology advances, when a homeowner can't even perceive of a drone within eyesight or earshot, yet it can look at you in your yard or through your window, this needs some help for us to figure things out. Those of us who respect property and privacy won't be the problem. It's the other people we have to worry about.
That should stop it.
Meanwhile, most personal drones will end up gathering dust in the closet because after the initial novelty wears off, they are just plain boring to keep fooling with or just too expensive to keep fixing after crashing. Add to that the crushing regulations needed to support and justify the new government alphabet soup pyramid mentioned above and it just won't be worth bothering with the darn things at all even if you're not bored and have a good reason for wanting to have one.
This isnt well thought out yet, but if someone was annoying me and spying on me with a drone, I would see to it that it wasnt flying over my house. If it was a police drone, I probably would find a way to keep it from spying on me somehow in a non lethal and not noticeable fashion.
our privacy sunbathing outdoors -- the only change
is the audience, Brett. . now, those on the north side
of St. Maarten can fly over the south side's nude beach
and take a look, just like the satellite owners and
their customers. . it's now interference with sunlight
and the intrusion of noise / physical presence which
must be fought. . if a drone "comes at" me, I have
a shotgun ready. . if it's noisy and I'm listening to
the birds, I have an alternative. . lasers are fun, too!
the police are too far away and too slow. -- j
.
.
Which is personal privacy?
Then, too: apartment landlords will have to decide quickly whether they're going to restrict delivery drone activity that serves their tenants. Drone allowances will become a selling point for apartment hunters--and in an age when single-family residential living gives way to apartment or townhouse tenancy, that becomes increasingly relevant. (The total cost of ownership exceeds the total cost of tenancy for comparable dwelling space, especially when you include either (a) the mortgage, or (b) opportunity lost from having investment capital tied up as home equity.)
Imagine: an Amazon Prime customer spreads a landing pad on the patio or balcony attached to his unit. But on the way, the drone drops the shipment, BONK! on someone else's head. Who's liable?
What I expect and hope will happen is that there is a reasonable vertical height to respect property lines, say 400-500 feet. The drone will have to fly in this higher airspace corridor and then make a vertical descent to its landing pad or zone. There doesn't need to be any loitering or drifting around for other reasons, all of which would create suspicion that there are other things going on that shouldn't be. If the landing zone has obstructions the drone will have to abort the mission promptly and return to base.