Drones - Privacy vs. Law/Security

  • Thread starter DeletedUser8396
  • Start date

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Appropriated from Xtcmax (with his permission ;))

Topic: Drones have become increasingly prevalent in recent events, either in foreign or domestic affairs. Drones decrease the available privacy to the individual, and so sparks the privacy vs. Law/Security debate!

Details: Explained in this post by Xtc:

I am sure that a lot of you are aware that a man in Kentooki shot a drone, which ,allegedly, was spying on his sun bathing daughter and now he is facing criminal charges.

Drones are considered to be a civilian aircraft. So, with that being said, I can totally buy a drone, mount a cam and just go around pick-a-booing into people's windows at any given point of time. Let's say someone is having a special moment together but here I am, with my drone, watching.

People build fences for many reason, but one of them is privacy. Another bull cliche in America's Justice System. All strategic points are deemed as "no fly zones" and god forbid you send a flying fart above that area, but a drone can freely fly above your house and spy on you.

So, If there is a pedo in my area or just a perv with a drone, I can no longer walk around my backyard or in my house naked in fear of being spied on? For the same argument what if I mount a microphone and go flying around downtown's office buildings listening to people? I might catch something interesting.

I wonder how would society react if I buy a drone and go taping backyards of famous people or government workers? , what if I go fly my drone around Bush's ranch?

This should be interesting!
 

DeletedUser18132

Guest
(Disclaimer: I'm only talking about America and American laws here)
My question is, what security does one get by owning a drone? (Assuming it is a private citizen)

I'll repeat what I said in the other thread, in my opinion, there should be laws about having no-fly zones over residential areas at the very least, although I would prefer even stricter guidelines. But then a problem arises, just how high should the limit of the no-fly zone be?

You can already register for your house to have a no-fly zone at https://www.noflyzone.org/faq. However, it does not control all drones, only manufacturers and companies that work with it.

Here are a few FAQs from that site:

Do I actually own the air above my land?

Property owners own the airspace above their land up to a certain height, but there has been a centuries-long legal debate about what that height is. NoFlyZone.org does not provide any legal advice or opinions. Our participants voluntarily agree to exclude their drones from overflying registrant’s properties.

How high does my no fly zone go?

At this time, we are not including any altitude information in the property information we provide to our participants. However, many of the major drone manufacturers are incorporating a 400 foot altitude limit in their controllers. The FAA requires drones to remain at and below 400 feet above the ground.

So, since the limit (currently) for drones is 400 feet, I believe that the FAA needs to create a no-fly zone from the ground right up to 400 feet for drones, unless the owner of a property signs a document stating that he permits drones to fly above his property. Then, and only then, may a drone fly only above his property. If a drone flies onto someone else's property, the property owner (or lessee) of that other property should have the right to shoot it down, just as he would a rabid dog that was on the loose.
 

DeletedUser44426

Guest
There shouldn't be any drones flying within the city limits or owned property period. Drones should be intended for military use only, and should not be in the use of civilians.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
As I am no authority on either drones or aviation laws, my comments relate to the wider privacy vs. security debate encapsulated by the oft repeated mantra "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to Fear!". This dichotomy pits one's own private life against the need for security, and justifies prying into people's private life as being a small price to pay for 'freedom'. So, now if anyone speaks out in favour of having some privacy (and the man who shot the drone down was wanting privacy for his family), then they are portrayed in the media as having something to hide; as being a potential threat (either to national security or to other people).

There was a recent example of how this debate plays out in Britain when the BBC interviewed a man in the street about combatting terrorism, and posed the same question. The man began to respond about privacy being important, when the BBC reporter interjected and asked if he felt that those who were not open to scrutiny had something to hide. There was a brief pause to allow the interviewee time for the question to sink in, and he answered that he agreed that government agencies should be able to explore people's private lives.

I think that it is quite disturbing that a desire for a private life is now equated with some form of deviancy, or possibly terrorism. Whether we are talking drones or having our telephones tapped, we need to be very careful that our private lives are not a casualty in the 'War on Terror'.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Since Repping is disabled in this section, Rhizome9, please accept a virtual +rep from me.

There are 2 issues here, one being that of having things buzzing about in/on/above your property or person, which can be annoying and offensive in itself, and we in the UK and other countries which have signed up to The European Convention on Human Rights, have a right to peaceful enjoyment of our property. I think someone hovering a drone noticeably over your property could well be legally considered harrassment in itself. A drone following you about your business without your permission certainly would.

The other being an expectation of privacy within the bounds of our own homes and gardens, or indeed any other property (maybe yacht, farm or office building) that we own/rent and do not have open to the public.

Although I see where the no-fly-zone thing is coming from, for the vast majority of normal people in the UK or in cities anywhere, this would make very little difference to the privacy of their garden areas. Most of us lucky enough to have a garden are overlooked by nextdoor's windows, and indeed often the windows of multiple other residences. A drone above their gardens would find it hard to avoid "seeing" into everyone elses'. A carefully placed wall to the side of a pool might provide some privacy in some cases, but a drone 400 feet above the road used to access the property would be able to see over most things.

I am a great believer in opt-in rather than opt-out, and certainly an opt-in flyzone law would rule out most drone use from gardens in residential areas. Presumably it would then restrict flight to above roads in most cases. This would increase but certainly not assure privacy for most, at least in predictable parts of their properties, assuming no neighbour with an angle wanted to fly over their own property.

I am in two minds though as to exactly how useful it wold be. It would severely reduce the range of the drone, taking away the "as the crow flies" option, and I am not sure how precisely a remote (rather than software) controller could stay over a road at 400 or even 50 feet, taking away the non-business or low cost option to the private hobbyist. Amazon is talking about using drones to make deliveries within minutes in range of their warehouses. There is a lot to whether that is desirable, however it is an example of business use that need not bother our privacy but would be greatly affected by noflyzone range issues.

A requirement to obtain a licence for aerial photography would reduce the privacy impact to only those viewing live. The issue would then be identification of the drone and its owner, and ofc finding out whether photography was actually taking place. The next step in any case would be requiring drones to be registered and identifiable, which given their size would likely be by automatically transmitted signals as well as visual identifiers.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
(Disclaimer: I'm only talking about America and American laws here)
My question is, what security does one get by owning a drone? (Assuming it is a private citizen)

I'll repeat what I said in the other thread, in my opinion, there should be laws about having no-fly zones over residential areas at the very least, although I would prefer even stricter guidelines. But then a problem arises, just how high should the limit of the no-fly zone be?

You can already register for your house to have a no-fly zone at https://www.noflyzone.org/faq. However, it does not control all drones, only manufacturers and companies that work with it.

Here are a few FAQs from that site:

So, since the limit (currently) for drones is 400 feet, I believe that the FAA needs to create a no-fly zone from the ground right up to 400 feet for drones, unless the owner of a property signs a document stating that he permits drones to fly above his property. Then, and only then, may a drone fly only above his property. If a drone flies onto someone else's property, the property owner (or lessee) of that other property should have the right to shoot it down, just as he would a rabid dog that was on the loose.
I agree with a limit of 400ft, that is plenty. This is both high enough to stifle any privacy concerns and also a good safety measure because low-flying drones can be very dangerous. For illustration, this is a pic of roughly 400ft high, very little amount of detail is actually discernible. You could get comparable results by fetching images from Google Maps so this would not be used to 'spy' on people.




There shouldn't be any drones flying within the city limits or owned property period. Drones should be intended for military use only, and should not be in the use of civilians.
Lol, drones is such a stupid term because people who don't know how widely used the term is get confused...

128470160-08144459.jpg

Drone_with_GoPro_digital_camera_mounted_underneath_-_22_April_2013.jpg

Consumer drones are more like RC rotorcrafts, and they are a very cool and fun tool.



As I am no authority on either drones or aviation laws, my comments relate to the wider privacy vs. security debate encapsulated by the oft repeated mantra "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to Fear!". This dichotomy pits one's own private life against the need for security, and justifies prying into people's private life as being a small price to pay for 'freedom'. So, now if anyone speaks out in favour of having some privacy (and the man who shot the drone down was wanting privacy for his family), then they are portrayed in the media as having something to hide; as being a potential threat (either to national security or to other people).

There was a recent example of how this debate plays out in Britain when the BBC interviewed a man in the street about combatting terrorism, and posed the same question. The man began to respond about privacy being important, when the BBC reporter interjected and asked if he felt that those who were not open to scrutiny had something to hide. There was a brief pause to allow the interviewee time for the question to sink in, and he answered that he agreed that government agencies should be able to explore people's private lives.

I think that it is quite disturbing that a desire for a private life is now equated with some form of deviancy, or possibly terrorism. Whether we are talking drones or having our telephones tapped, we need to be very careful that our private lives are not a casualty in the 'War on Terror'.

Very well said, this exact has been a major point in the whole NSA debacle. I couldn't agree with you more.



Although I see where the no-fly-zone thing is coming from, for the vast majority of normal people in the UK or in cities anywhere, this would make very little difference to the privacy of their garden areas. Most of us lucky enough to have a garden are overlooked by nextdoor's windows, and indeed often the windows of multiple other residences. A drone above their gardens would find it hard to avoid "seeing" into everyone elses'. A carefully placed wall to the side of a pool might provide some privacy in some cases, but a drone 400 feet above the road used to access the property would be able to see over most things.
400ft is pretty high, you wouldn't be able to use images taken from that height to spy on people feasibly. It would be easier to just put a ladder up again their fence, or find a tall nearby tree to sit in.


I am a great believer in opt-in rather than opt-out, and certainly an opt-in flyzone law would rule out most drone use from gardens in residential areas. Presumably it would then restrict flight to above roads in most cases. This would increase but certainly not assure privacy for most, at least in predictable parts of their properties, assuming no neighbour with an angle wanted to fly over their own property.

I am in two minds though as to exactly how useful it wold be. It would severely reduce the range of the drone, taking away the "as the crow flies" option, and I am not sure how precisely a remote (rather than software) controller could stay over a road at 400 or even 50 feet, taking away the non-business or low cost option to the private hobbyist. Amazon is talking about using drones to make deliveries within minutes in range of their warehouses. There is a lot to whether that is desirable, however it is an example of business use that need not bother our privacy but would be greatly affected by noflyzone range issues.

A requirement to obtain a licence for aerial photography would reduce the privacy impact to only those viewing live. The issue would then be identification of the drone and its owner, and ofc finding out whether photography was actually taking place. The next step in any case would be requiring drones to be registered and identifiable, which given their size would likely be by automatically transmitted signals as well as visual identifiers.
Controllers are fairly precise actually! It's more the people who control them who often are not :p
I don't think a license is the way to go as I honestly don't think this is a very huge problem. Just making it illegal to fly below 400ft above someone's property would probably resolve all issues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser18132

Guest
A carefully placed wall to the side of a pool might provide some privacy in some cases, but a drone 400 feet above the road used to access the property would be able to see over most things.

I support the no-fly zone of 400 feet because in the USA, the FAA requires that drones fly 400 feet or below. Once the new FAA rules are passed, I would support having the no-fly zone go up to 500 feet, because that will be the new maximum height drones will be allowed to fly at.

My question is, what security does one get by owning a drone? (Assuming it is a private citizen)

Anyone? :D
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't think anyone buys a drone for security. That's not its application at all?
 

DeletedUser23986

Guest
Unless the govt allows virtual tours on presidential/historical/otherwise important govt buildings, I feel it should respect the right to equality and prohibit flying drones in my property too. 400 ft and above seems a viable option too.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
For illustration, this is a pic of roughly 400ft high, very little amount of detail is actually discernible. You could get comparable results by fetching images from Google Maps so this would not be used to 'spy' on people.

If you click on the link and look at the picture, there is a building in the centre with a domed roof. In front of the house is parked a large motorhome. And I swear I can just make out Jessie and Walter White cooking Meth!

Hey, this drone business is a really good idea!
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
I agree with a limit of 400ft, that is plenty. This is both high enough to stifle any privacy concerns and also a good safety measure because low-flying drones can be very dangerous. For illustration, this is a pic of roughly 400ft high, very little amount of detail is actually discernible. You could get comparable results by fetching images from Google Maps so this would not be used to 'spy' on people.
400ft is pretty high, you wouldn't be able to use images taken from that height to spy on people feasibly. It would be easier to just put a ladder up again their fence, or find a tall nearby tree to sit in.
Controllers are fairly precise actually! It's more the people who control them who often are not :p
I don't think a license is the way to go as I honestly don't think this is a very huge problem. Just making it illegal to fly below 400ft above someone's property would probably resolve all issues.

The idea of 400ft exclusion over someone's property was to make a total exclusion because its already not allowed to fly higher than that without permission/permit. Getting permission means the person and vehicle would be identifiable, so providing the same information as licensing. Its also an effort and not instant, and so a disincentive to do anything dodgy.

Flying at the height of a tree over an adjacent property though still creates privacy implications. It doesn't have to be 400ft up, just 50ft, and given that the drone isn't licensed and does not need to have ID the privacy implications are increased because you may not know whose it is. Whilst there is a legal (though not practical) requirement for the drone to be in line of sight of the controller, that does not require the controller to be in line of sight of the target, kinda would defeat the point if it did.

Now I like googlemaps and even streetview as a consumer, but I don't like that they take pictures of my property and show them to everyone. I am not as uptight about them taking pics of other people's houses etc. Just getting natural honesty out of the way here. However when google takes pics of my property I like to think that it was at a time that suited their schedule, not planned to be during my (imaginary) daughter's 18th birthday pool party, nor when they saw a particular car parked outside, or whatever. I certainly don't have that much faith in my neighbour's motives, or that of someone with a grudge or an angle.

Yeah, some of them could climb a tree, but frankly most of them couldn't - we are not all built like skully :p.
The risk of falling out of the tree in front of my target would certainly make me think twice about it, or of being filmed and youtubed climbing down once spotted. Also I would suggest that the vast majority of town/city homes would not have a suitable nearby tree.

Most of them could probably climb a ladder, but still, the likelihood of getting caught either at the time or when the pictures are shown is higher. Either they own the adjacent property and the camera angle will show this or for the other (infinity-3) people they have a ladder against your fence on the public pavement...which is not very undercover at all. Cue a lynching.

Seriously, having a remote controlled flying camera, especially an unregistered one, would be behaviour-changing. Just the mere fact that intent is deniable "oh, I didn't notice you there kissing your husband's best friend, I was watching the chaffinches on your bird table, but now that you have brought my attention to it..." or "yeah well I was just flying it to Tom's house across the way, and over your sunbed is the most direct route" etc. Can't do that sitting in a tree or up a ladder.

The guy who shot the drone in the OP might be a trigger happy murrican, but he might just as well be someone who would pull you down, break your nose and stamp on your camera if only that had been an option. Not many of us in the UK have a gun, and even fewer one that could do anything noticable to a small leggy flying camera that knows we are there. Merely shooting in the direction of a possible human controller, albeit at an upward angle, would certainly attract harsher repercussions than the drone owner would face.

It may not be a big thing yet, but if the law doesn't curtail it, it will certainly grow, and fast. With so many diverse motives to have one, all the way from cool fun to spying, both technology and ownership will grow. So will the camera technology it can carry. Looking at last year's vids and this years vids I see better stability and proper zoom. The weight limit in the UK might be challenging, but ofc companies will be looking to make the best machine within the limits. A growing market is a great incentive.

Long long ago there used to be a model aircraft club that met on a hill on common land a few miles from the nearest town where I lived, because it was really not the done thing to fly over anything much except gorse and heather, certainly not over roads or buildings. The risk of accidents involving people property or infrastructure required it. It was kinda self regulating because it was small. This isn't small, and anyone's 6-90yo tike can have a go and wreak personal or material havoc. Its going to happen, just like the shooting.

EDIT: Just wanted to say that although I only quoted skully, it was about other things too.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The idea of 400ft exclusion over someone's property was to make a total exclusion because its already not allowed to fly higher than that without permission/permit. Getting permission means the person and vehicle would be identifiable, so providing the same information as licensing. Its also an effort and not instant, and so a disincentive to do anything dodgy.
Ah, I did not realize. Over here it's 300m (roughly 1000ft) so you'd still have 600ft of free roaming space :p (which can make for some great shots!)


Flying at the height of a tree over an adjacent property though still creates privacy implications. It doesn't have to be 400ft up, just 50ft, and given that the drone isn't licensed and does not need to have ID the privacy implications are increased because you may not know whose it is. Whilst there is a legal (though not practical) requirement for the drone to be in line of sight of the controller, that does not require the controller to be in line of sight of the target, kinda would defeat the point if it did.

Now I like googlemaps and even streetview as a consumer, but I don't like that they take pictures of my property and show them to everyone. I am not as uptight about them taking pics of other people's houses etc. Just getting natural honesty out of the way here. However when google takes pics of my property I like to think that it was at a time that suited their schedule, not planned to be during my (imaginary) daughter's 18th birthday pool party, nor when they saw a particular car parked outside, or whatever. I certainly don't have that much faith in my neighbour's motives, or that of someone with a grudge or an angle.

Yeah, some of them could climb a tree, but frankly most of them couldn't - we are not all built like skully :p.
The risk of falling out of the tree in front of my target would certainly make me think twice about it, or of being filmed and youtubed climbing down once spotted. Also I would suggest that the vast majority of town/city homes would not have a suitable nearby tree.

Most of them could probably climb a ladder, but still, the likelihood of getting caught either at the time or when the pictures are shown is higher. Either they own the adjacent property and the camera angle will show this or for the other (infinity-3) people they have a ladder against your fence on the public pavement...which is not very undercover at all. Cue a lynching.

Seriously, having a remote controlled flying camera, especially an unregistered one, would be behaviour-changing. Just the mere fact that intent is deniable "oh, I didn't notice you there kissing your husband's best friend, I was watching the chaffinches on your bird table, but now that you have brought my attention to it..." or "yeah well I was just flying it to Tom's house across the way, and over your sunbed is the most direct route" etc. Can't do that sitting in a tree or up a ladder.
You're not wrong, a drone definitely makes it easier in some ways to take incognito pictures, but it's still a fairly high barrier of entry.
First of all a drone is not easy to fly. It takes a longer than a few weeks to learn to control it, especially in more confined spaces like a neighbourhood. Wind makes it move erratically and even without wind they are still quite difficult to control, you will crash and lose it a lot when flying in an open field, let alone flying it in a neighbourhood with houses, private property and trees everywhere. You do not want to lose it in someone else's yard/roof because:
Secondly, a decent drone with a decent compatible camera are not cheap. Virtually all drones are made for go-pros and if you have to buy both that's easily $750-$1000 gone.
When you take this into consideration, a ladder and an old digital camera is a lot cheaper. :p You're still correct in that it facilitates people but I don't know if many people will risk up to $1000 to spy on others more easily. At that point, if you are that curious and that invested in it, a personal investigator would probably yield more results.

EDIT: Just thought of this, to avoid being seen you could also just mount to camera in the tree late at night and come back the next day. This way you won't be recognized. If there's no tree there is most likely some other vantage point available, especially in Europe because we tend to make more compact cities.

My point is, while it may make it easier to film someone's property from outside of it, it is still legal. Whether or not that should remain legal is a different debate, because there are definitely a lot of upsides of being allowed to film everything in public spaces.



It may not be a big thing yet, but if the law doesn't curtail it, it will certainly grow, and fast. With so many diverse motives to have one, all the way from cool fun to spying, both technology and ownership will grow. So will the camera technology it can carry. Looking at last year's vids and this years vids I see better stability and proper zoom. The weight limit in the UK might be challenging, but ofc companies will be looking to make the best machine within the limits. A growing market is a great incentive.
Again you're not wrong, but I just think that the vast majority of people buy them either for film-making or for fun (much like the model planes you mentioned) Maybe I just have more faith in humanity than you :p
Even if people start buying them to spy on others, the drones will only be a facilitator and not the cause. There are drones without the ability to mount cameras, they should remain unaffected by any change in regulation that might happen because of he camera-mounted ones.

Long long ago there used to be a model aircraft club that met on a hill on common land a few miles from the nearest town where I lived, because it was really not the done thing to fly over anything much except gorse and heather, certainly not over roads or buildings. The risk of accidents involving people property or infrastructure required it. It was kinda self regulating because it was small. This isn't small, and anyone's 6-90yo tike can have a go and wreak personal or material havoc. Its going to happen, just like the shooting.
There's a significant difference between the two though, model airplanes are even harder to fly. Model airplanes also cost much more with high-end models costing in the 5-digit range, and they are surprisingly heavy. Additionally, they fly completely differently. Model airplanes have far less maneuverability and fly are much greater speeds, so the resulting accidents are more severe.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Ah, I did not realize. Over here it's 300m (roughly 1000ft) so you'd still have 600ft of free roaming space :p (which can make for some great shots!)
You had me worried for a minute there so I went back and checked.
In true British fashion, our height restriction is 400ft and all our other restrictions are in metres :D

EDIT: so that means that it is actually required to be 50meters (not feet) from another person and 150 metres (not feet) from a building, so I guess that covers a lot of privacy issues for built-up areas already. Pretty much requires a height of 150m except in take-off or landing, which would have to be 150m away from buildings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser23986

Guest
You had me worried for a minute there so I went back and checked.
In true British fashion, our height restriction is 400ft and all our other restrictions are in metres :D

EDIT: so that means that it is actually required to be 50meters (not feet) from another person and 150 metres (not feet) from a building, so I guess that covers a lot of privacy issues for built-up areas already. Pretty much requires a height of 150m except in take-off or landing, which would have to be 150m away from buildings.
But 150m is more than 400 ft, doesn't this contradiction make it illegal to fly drones at all in any area with any sort of building in range of 150m already?
 
Top