3D Robotics

3689482004?profile=originalThe brilliant Alexis Madrigal at the Atlantic has a great and historically fascinating piece on the fuzzy legal question regarding drones and privacy. Short form: the laws are vague, vary from place to place and nobody really knows what the rules are until they're tested in the courts. Precedents go all the way back to the first hot-air balloons!

It's really worth reading the whole thing, but here's one sample quote:

"This idea of a reasonable expectation of privacy has always been accepted as the standard and the interface of that privacy right and emerging UAV technology is fascinating," Ravitch said. "There is not an answer. The best we can do is arrive at laws and practices of the then-existing sensibilities of the population."

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Wow, I can't believe that chicken farmer lost the case.  That's a pretty big precedent.  Assuming his farm existed before the airport, the decision basically states that you have NO rights to the air over your property at ANY height.  He suffered direct property loss as a consequence of aircraft flying quite low, and had no recourse at all.

  • Once again, the Atlantic comes through with great writing. Thanks Chris, for bringing our attention to this topic. I have heard that applications for enrollment in law schools has declined. I hope that the intended - or simply unfortunate - flights by drone builders or users doesn't directly contribute to a reversal of that trend.

  • T3

    I think James has found my new mantra...."the air is a public highway"...t-shirts to follow..

     

  • the air is a public highway,as congress has declared. I like the sound of that

  • Another great piece to enjoy along with my breakfast!

    Intent is difficult to assertain before an event. That is why we, as drone builders/users, must be vigilant with safety efforts and educate/assist the authorities and the general public.

    As Chris responded to the Q&A at the NY Maker meeting, someone, eventually, will do something bad with this technology. The literal 'damage control' process should already be in place if/when this occurs.

    Thank you Chris!

    -=Doug

  • that has prompted me to think "how would I take it if someone did that to me"...

    well, I guess that if I caught someone with an AR Drone or the like peering into my windows I'd have no problem downing it and daring the owner to come and get it...

    at the other end; if one of my neighbors accidentally crashed their drone into my back yard while learning to fly or just mucking around, I wouldn't mind so much. As long as no serious damage is done eg; dog isn't injured, no windows broken etc, I'd happily return it and politely request they be more careful...

    I can see the minefield... in theory the only difference between my two scenarios is the intent...

This reply was deleted.