VA:Woman blasts drone to smitherines over her property

[Jusme]

Sure, understand and point taken. Was also simply pointing out that there are some exceptions. Many of which go out the window if it is used for commercial purposes. But oddly, as I read the Texas law, I can have my camera on all the time if I simply remove the video card and use the video feed for navigational aid purposes, or alternately can record all the time if I set the drone/camera to record me at all times and I am either on my property or property I'm authorized access to, or on public property. Not saying I personally would do that, just what the law allows me to do as I understand it.

I cleaned out the quote chain to make it a bit more readable. If the camera is capturing an image, recording or not, it technically violates Texas law. Although as long as you and no one else sees the image you have a defense to prosecution. Now if someone else is watching the monitor you have now displayed the image to a third party and lost the defense to prosecution. With two guys being involved (both most likely watching the monitor), if this was in Texas the pilot of the device would have been in violation of the law if the camera saw the shooters property unless they had permission to record it.

Well if nothing else they have video of a dove's point of view.

[remanifest]

This Ars Technica article has many quotes from the woman who shot the drone down. I'm definitely in support of the landowner here. People have a right to privacy within their property, and drones can be outfitted with cameras capable of performing streaming. There are huge privacy implications, and I absolutely support a homeowner's right to bring down any drone that is flying directly over their private property line.

[cirus]

Drones are useful just like cell phones. They're also becoming a nuisance just like cell phones. I know some people who shouldn't be allowed to own a cell phone for the publics sake. If a drone just passes over my property and keeps going that's one thing but if it's just hovering and possibly watching me then it's fair game and I could care less about the law.

[TexasTornado]

I would have to look it up, however I think the FAA now consider shooting at UAVs (drones) like shooting at aircraft. This may apply to UAVs licensed under Part 107. If the operator was operating the UAV outside their line of sight they were potentially in violation of the FAA regs on such devices. In Texas the UAV operator would have been operating illegally if the UAV was recording video or taking still photos.

I'm not sure we know if it was operating illegally if it was recording, given that there are exceptions and I haven't yet seen anything to indicate if it did or didn't meet an exception (for example, it could have been flying over her property but been recording a view of public property and at the prescribe altitude or less, or other exceptions):
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... GV.423.htm

I should have chosen my words more carefully, and phrased it as "In Texas the UAV operator would have most likely been operating illegally if the UAV was recording video or taking still photos." This was not in Texas, however it is not uncommon to see UAVs flown in Texas and record illegally. 90% of the time these folks that overfly private property record the entire flight. Additionally there is some, although not worth me taking the risk, ambiguity in the law regarding the language "with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property." The fact that you have intent and the meaning of surveillance coming into play muddies the waters slightly. If I remember correctly the woman who shot the drone down has Robert Duvall as a neighbor, odds are this UAV was being used for commercial purposes (Think paparazzi).

With inexpensive UAVs the only option is to record the whole flight as you have to manually start the recording before it leaves the ground. If the operator is wanting to video a park but crosses the corner of Mrs. Smith's garden in the process....yep, I can see why they included intent in the statute.

[crazy2medic]

My view (pun intended) if it's in range of a shotgun while flying over private property then it's being used for nefarious purposes, if the operator wants his drone to be operating without holes in it when he gets it back, it should be flying well out of shitgun range!

[bblhd672]

Interesting side note - the property the drone was first flying over belonged to actor Robert Duvall. I think that's right neighborly of the lady to protect the privacy of the famous guy next door. The two guys were probably trying to get some kind of candid video to sell to TMZ or another trash media outlet.

[Glockster]

Sure, understand and point taken. Was also simply pointing out that there are some exceptions. Many of which go out the window if it is used for commercial purposes. But oddly, as I read the Texas law, I can have my camera on all the time if I simply remove the video card and use the video feed for navigational aid purposes, or alternately can record all the time if I set the drone/camera to record me at all times and I am either on my property or property I'm authorized access to, or on public property. Not saying I personally would do that, just what the law allows me to do as I understand it.

I cleaned out the quote chain to make it a bit more readable. If the camera is capturing an image, recording or not, it technically violates Texas law. Although as long as you and no one else sees the image you have a defense to prosecution. Now if someone else is watching the monitor you have now displayed the image to a third party and lost the defense to prosecution. With two guys being involved (both most likely watching the monitor), if this was in Texas the pilot of the device would have been in violation of the law if the camera saw the shooters property unless they had permission to record it.

I don't think there would be much success trying to take the legally stated "capture" and turn it into having made and retained an image or recording. If it is seen by the camera and transmitted to the ground receiver and not recorded, how then is that meeting the intent of the term capture? If it isn't recorded, that goes beyond nobody else seeing it, as there is no way to say that the image was or was not there. I would ask how exactly you could be prosecuted for that - what evidence is there that there might have been a specific image there 10 minutes ago?

I also don't see in the law any requirement as to whether or not someone standing next to you has to see the image as then constituting a violation as capture doesn't specify that it is seen or not seen by anyone. I would argue that I can have my camera on any time I want as I use the image to help with navigation at a distance that is still within line of site but too far away to see any obstacle not readily visible to me from my ground position. And I am allowed by the FAA to have anyone I want standing there with me looking at my monitor - for example, someone instructing me.

Texas lacks authority to regulate the operation of my drone in airspace that is regulated by the FAA, and if I want to use my drones visual navigation and avoidance system, I'm certainly going to do so as I have an FAA license that allows for that.

I don't use my drone for violating someone's privacy, it is for flying fun. My only point is that law is well intended but I think that it is yet one more that isn't well written as they do not provide a legal definition of capture.

[Abraham]

Civilian drone operators are always smugly pointing out the law that allows them to legally record/hover over/peep into windows when flying over or hovering over people's yards. Nah, nah, nah,nah, nah, there's you can do nothing about it, Mr. Homeowner, as the law is on our side. Pffftttt to you! We'll fly/record all we want over your home and yard and you can't stop us! So there!

Don't snoop or photograph/record over people yards. Have some common courtesy.

Look at it this way: If a some stranger decided he could come into your yard at will or look through your windows how would you react? I'm guessing - poorly... What's the difference between a grounded peeping tom or an aerial peeping tom?

Absolutely NOTHING!

So, the argument of "Hey, the law says you, Mr. Homeowner, don't own the air space over your home, so I can aerially snoop all I care to. Really? Don't be surprised when your snooping machine gets blown to smithereens.

[Glockster]

Civilian drone operators are always smugly pointing out the law that allows them to legally record/hover over/peep into windows when flying over or hovering over people's yards. Nah, nah, nah,nah, nah, there's you can do about it, Mr. Homeowner, as the law is on our side. Pffftttt to you! We'll fly/record all we want over your home and yard and you can't stop us! So there!

Don't snoop or photograph/record over people yards. Have some common courtesy.

Look at it this way: If a some stranger decided he could come in your yard at will or look through your windows how would you react? I'm guessing - poorly... What's the difference between a grounded peeping tom or an aerial peeping tom?

Absolutely NOTHING!

So, the argument of "Hey, the law says you, Mr. Homeowner, don't own the air space over your home, so I can aerially snoop all I care to. Really? Don't be surprised when your snooping machine gets blown to smithereens.

I think that you may be missing a point though. If I overfly your house with my drone, in compliance with the regulations that apply, how exactly is it that you would know that I was snooping? Are you saying that the simple presence of a camera that is permanently attached to my drone automatically means that it is snooping or that you have some innate ability to determine which exact direction that the camera may be pointed or that it is even seeing your property? And that you then are somehow legally justified in discharging a firearm, using deadly force?

[Abraham]

Methinks, you're applying a bit of anthropomorphism to an inanimate snooping machine, re: "And that you then are somehow legally justified in discharging a firearm, using deadly force?" 'Deadly force' applied to a snooping machine, what a hoot!

Much like I've no beef with Southwest Airlines overflying my house, I've no quarrel with a drone overflying my house if it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up there and is simply on it's way to some destination other than my home and yard.

If however, the snooping machine (aka as a drone, whether fixed wing or helicopter type) is significantly low and buzzing/visiting around and over my house and yard like some humming bird, it's half life may be halved...

[Glockster]

Methinks, you're applying a bit of anthropomorphism to an inanimate snooping machine, re: "And that you then are somehow legally justified in discharging a firearm, using deadly force?" 'Deadly force' applied to a snooping machine, what a hoot!

Much like I've no beef with Southwest Airlines overflying my house, I've no quarrel with a drone overflying my house if it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up there and is simply on it's way to some destination other than my home and yard.

If however, the snooping machine (aka as a drone, whether fixed wing or helicopter type) is significantly low and buzzing/visiting around and over my house and yard like some humming bird, it's half life may be halved...

Yes, if you discharge a shotgun I'm pretty sure you have utilized deadly force the same way that the discharge of any firearm is that. Your pellets go somewhere and you can't legally decide on your own that you don't think they might cause harm so it must not be deadly force.

You are saying that YOU are deciding what is "way up there" and also what is "significantly low" and then arbitrarily deciding that you are then justified in destroying what may be several thousand dollars worth of drone (personal property). All that without knowing what the legal restrictions and requirements are. Not to mention that you probably have a lack of understanding of how drones can work, and that some drones are programmed to automatically return home if it senses a loss of positive control or if it is issued a command to return home, and that it may be forced to take a less desirable flight path over your house, and that a collision avoidance system may cause it to even hover in your area while it attempts to solve a navigation problem, or a nearby hospital may have launched an aircraft causing the drone operator to take immediate action as required within five miles of that hospital, and on and on.

I'm simply trying to add a viewpoint to the conversation that your seeing drone does not equal to it is snooping and you can shoot it down.

[Abraham]

Glockster,

Yes, yes I know, whenever they overstep their boundaries, droners launch into tortured, self-justifying reasons why it's perfectly OK for them to snoop with their wee flying machines.

Why the very thought they'd snoop into someone's personal space, home, yard, is balderdash they say, harrumph!

Not buying it, nope, wouldn't be prudent.

Here's the gist of my view point as it pertains to drones: My yard, stay out of it!

[G.A. Heath]

UAS/UAV/Drone/whatever operators are misunderstood and villified just like auto enthusiasts and firearms enthusiasts. Texas law is considered by many to be very draconian in regards to drones. Some folks feel the FAA overstepped their bounds by regulating drones, and others feel the correct response to seeing a drone is to shoot it down.

I am VERY careful about where and how I fly my quadcopter, just like I am very careful about where and how I drive, and just like I am very careful about where and how I carry or shoot. These drones have a limited range and flight time, most people would be better served following the device to where it lands and documenting the operators information/License Plate number and reporting them. Arbitrarily shooting down a drone could land someone in serious trouble, especially if the drone is being used to perform a task such as looking for flood victims, surveying a pipeline, or other legal use. Also note that if the drone is within 5 miles of an airport the operator has to get permission to operate from the tower and that permission could easily require altitude limits such as 100 feet or below.

[Dadtodabone]

Glockster,

Yes, yes I know, whenever they overstep their boundaries, droners launch into tortured, self-justifying reasons why it's perfectly OK for them to snoop with their wee flying machines.

Why the very thought they'd snoop into someone's personal space, home, yard, is balderdash they say, harrumph!

Not buying it, nope, wouldn't be prudent.

Here's the gist of my view point as it pertains to drones: My yard, stay out of it!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z7X2_V60YK8

[TreyHouston]

Very intrigued in this case. So, the drone is illegally of your "property" at an upward angle. Discharging a firearm at an upward angle is NOT GOOD for obvious reasons. Birdshot would probably be ok. What are you to do in this situation? I dont have any birdshot, should i just call spiderman? He could shoot it down with a web! Hahaha