In Florida v. Riley, from the US Supreme court, it was ruled that police did not need a warrant to hover over someone's house with a helicopter to peer into the roof of a greenhouse to check for marijuana.
The police can do a lot of things without a warrant that you and I shouldn't and often can't do. For instance: they can pull your car over and then shine a flashlight through the windows to inspect what's visible in plain sight in the passenger compartment.
They can pull your car over with cause, yes. This is something we cannot do. However, it's not illegal for you or I to view the contents of someone's car, even with a flashlight. If it's in plain sight, it's perfectly legal.
There's a lot that maybe we shouldn't do but is completely legal anyway.
I doubt this was fully legal. It's been repeatedly upheld that a private home has a reasonable expectation of privacy (this is a legal, not lay distinction) - which is to say that recording inside a private home, even without trespass, can be illegal.
Something being in plain sight is not a sufficient condition for legally photographing it. You cannot, for example, point a camera into your neighbor's bedroom, photograph the results, and distribute it on the internet, even if, say, the camera was on public sidewalks.
Does it matter that they may go to jail when you've had your ass kicked or worse[1] (personal friend). Crazy is everywhere and you don't really know when it's going to pop up.
While your friend's death is tragic, like you said crazy is everywhere and you don't really know when it's going to pop up. From the sounds of it, your friend did nothing to purposefully agitate his attacker and had no way of predicting the possible outcome. From that point of view, you may as well argue that you shouldn't merge lanes on the highway if someone is in sight of you, because that could set them off.
Yeah, it's possible to predict a poor outcome from something like this. It's possible to predict a poor outcome from anything. It all depends on how much fear you want to live with.
I'm very happy to see the Capitol Hill Seattle blog[1] get a nod in this article. Justin, the creator, has been doing a fantastic job of reporting on news that's relevant to Capitol Hill for several years, now, and he's also proving that 'hyperlocal' news can actually work under certain circumstances.
Justin's reporting lacks the hyperbolic nature of TV news, and keeps me on top of things that are actually relevant to me. Plus, he's just a stand-up guy.
Great blog, good guy. Community is involved too. He's pretty dedicated, though, not sure you could get the same effect with a nationwide network of stringers.
EDIT: Yes, downvote me to oblivion because I pointed out this post is in blatant violation of HN rules:
Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter.
The content is exactly the same as The Atlantic article. The Atlantic is not where the incident was first reported, but it is the source of all the legal analysis and commentary on the issue.
I would argue this at least creates a cause of action (civil law claim/lawsuit) for Nuisance, for disrupting one's right of private enjoyment of their property. Such a argument might lose and I am not aware of any criminal charge on point, in which case the defacto remedy...flying drones over this guys house 24/7 until he agrees (in writing) to no longer fly his drones over/near private properties.
This immediately brought to mind the story by Heinlein in which an argument is made that several world countries "own" the moon, since land rights should be extended from Earth ground level into the heavens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon
> Harriman seeks to avoid government ownership of the Moon. As it passes directly overhead only in a narrow band north and south of the equator, he uses a legal principle that states that property rights extend to infinity above a land parcel. On that basis, Mexico, Central and parts of South America, and other countries in those latitudes around the world, have a claim on the Moon. The United States also has a claim due to Florida and Texas. By arranging for many countries to assert their rights Harriman persuades the United Nations to, as a compromise, assign management of the Moon to his company.
Unless of course his intent was to draw attention to the fact that this is going to become a major problem, and soon, due to the absence of regulation around drone airspace, in which case, success!
Success? Sounds like a good way to get in trouble in more ways than one. I don't think I would have been as gracious as "ok I'm going to go call the police".
Even if he was trying to bring the issue to light... there has got to be better ways then potentially getting your ass kicked by strangers.
And if flying the drone is legal, you would have been taken to jail for assault, thereby turning the man into a martyr. You can't kick someone's ass out of the blue for doing something that's perfectly legal to do.
Yeah, but he bugged out and remains unidentified, so it remains perfectly possible that this was an attempt to draw media attention to the problem of drone surveillance.
Then again, it could be some dude who's discovered that he can remotely perv on people, in which case, this is still a general success, as it draws attention to the problem of drone surveillance.
I have one of those drones -- and I also live in Seattle. I mostly just fly it in public parks where most people think it's pretty cool. I can completely understand why people think it's creepy though, and definitely foresee municipal law challenging airspace rights.
People in the area are pretty sensitive to the concept especially considering the local police department's recent effort to use patrol drones (the program was recently cancelled).
I imagine a full-on garden hose would bring the thing down or interfere with it. Of course you have to see it first, but if it's there over your property you'd have an educational court adventure in your near future.
I can see it now: automated water cannons on top of every house as anti-aircraft/drone! Safe for wildlife (birds) but not for electronics. Then, waterproofed drones. Followed by silly-string cannons to gum up any rotors. Where will it end?
It will end with drones capable of neutralizing AA guns with bomblets, followed by homeowners installing Surface-Air missiles, followed by drones using ECM, followed by...
Actually, good point! On the bright side, this seems like a great business opportunity.
It's not the water that's the problem, it's the force of the impact. Quad-copters are very lightweight, they'd easily be thrown wildly off balance by a good burst of water.
Sounds sort of like the Creepy Cameraman[1], also from Seattle. I wonder if they are related. Both instances seem like they could have the aim of making a point/raising an issue.
"Air is a public highway" Supreme Court ruled in 1946. Maybe it is time to consider a minimum altitude, which must be obeyed outside public areas? Something like 300 or 1000 feet depending on local conditions (building height, terrain etc). Would that make sense?
This stranger seems to have achieved his objective of demonstrating a capability and pushing the conversation about drones along.
The home owner could have dones his part by destroying the drone (I'd prefer a shotgun but if it really was that close simply shooting a net at it would have worked) such that the "researcher" would suffer a property loss which could then give him action to sue.
Then we could have the whole thing walk through the court system and draw out the folks who are pushing behind the scenes because they would not want case law on the books that made done use over private property ruled illegal or property owners destroying drones over their property ruled legal.
So, if the couple had shot down the drone (by a gun with a legal permit, or some other means, e.g. slingshot or a counter drone) would the creepy man be able to press charges?
Look, I build these things as a hobby. I am not a hysterical nay sayer. But..........
Firstly, planes and helicopters are a lot harder to fly. So there is a skill barrier that puts most people off.
Secondly, these drones are very stable. Couple that with now cheap HD corrected cameras, and any one can literally spy right in to your daughter's bed room.
And this is the real shit of life right now. Almost everything fun and cool is also threat to privacy and freedom, as much as it protects privacy and freedom.
The game has changed. Even a year ago my drones were "cool". People loved to see them and we fascinated by them. Today, they fear them, they are suspicious of them, and now my motives get questioned.
In Florida v. Riley, from the US Supreme court, it was ruled that police did not need a warrant to hover over someone's house with a helicopter to peer into the roof of a greenhouse to check for marijuana.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley