Citizens shoot down Animal rights group drone

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Depends on the municipality .. most places it's only like 50-100 feet above the highest point of your property (like the top of your house). Above that it's considered public space. But I think in this case, purposeful spying with an unmanned object would be considered a violation of privacy by reasonable expectation of privacy. The hunters or whoever they were can site the cases won against Google Maps when they lost a few lawsuits regarding pictures taken from a public street exposing individuals on their private property. It was ruled a violation of privacy.

Wow...I hope this case becomes the precedent that keeps celebrities and public figures safe from poparazi

I know I wouldn't want anyone taking a flying camera outside my property or home to perv into my privite life and use the images for who knows what!

Prosecute them!!!

citizens have the right to privacy.

Enough said.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

And even if the flight was illegal I suspect they will have a case anyway for destruction of private property.

Everyone is so damn sue happy, it is pathetic....

Sorry Atg, not trying to sound brutal, but I believe if they were spying,,,,then they got busted.......it was settled.....

Dunno about the spying bit tho - if you are shooting game then what is it that is secret that means there is spying going on??

I believe in caretaking this planet with alot less harm and suffering to nature.

But to think that a drone with strangers has the right to watch what your doing and take video is insane.

Do you have the idea of a totally private less world, constantly recorded by drones and subject to the scrutiny of others is OK? Because you're obeying so have nothing to fear, no need for privacy?

I'm a very private person and no one has the right to record anything we say or do, its none of their business, wherever on this planet, which I am a member of, I happen to be, ie, at home or out in public.

No compromises there either.

I think a lot of people are going to be taking out a lot of drones soon, if this NWO keeps up.

All of you who defend SHARK scare the hell out of me. Think about it, if SHARK can legally launch a UAV to spy on these guys on private property who else will be able to? Can you imagine a world without privacy? What if your neighbor had one and enjoyed watching your wife or daughter in the swimming pool? I have to say that if a private entity thought they could keep an eye on me on my property their UAV would without a doubt meet a similar demise.

reply to post by algaedyne


I wonder what the laws will be about flying drones over peoples property? Will they have the right to shoot it down? To keep it? Sue?

I feel a short story coming on. Someone give me an official sounding name for a law. Say someone in the story is has a criminal record and the charges are because they continuously flew a drone over someones property to commit some perverse voyeurism. What law did they violate and under what act?

People have a right to their privacy, and it shouldn't be allowed that someone may fly a camera over your property to 'watch' you, regardless of the intent. This goes for the government as well, law enforcement agencies. Warrants only... not a hard concept.

Likewise, this could have been handled better. Shooting willy-nilly into the sky is never a good idea, and they had Law Enforcement on hand to do something else, in a much safer, and less provoking manner.

reply to post by Surfrat


Lol we need to form an electronics have rights movement and sue the animal rights activists for inhumane treatment of an electronic device.

We can place the RIP sign on the same highway PETA tried to get to place a sign in memory of the cattle who died in a truck accident.

Well at least some posters didn't bother to read the article. It seems the hunters or whoever that was were shooting at the drone when it was around the highway. Not flying over the pidgeon shooting grounds. Also what I wonder is how is the privacy issue with a business area? I'm not that aware of US system in this regard.

reply to post by PsykoOps


So long as the air craft / drone doesn't fly into controlled airspace they are fine. I'm not sure how big the drone is so it might be required to maintain a minimum base altitude.. Aside from that they cant pretty much do what ever they want so long as the item doesn't put anyone in danger.

Our ATC system is goofy.. Its an upside down pyramid. The farther from controlled tower at lower altitudes the less control, while higher altitudes are slotted into flight corridors and tracked / controlled by the airspace control towers (whatever they are called).

The info above is based on a few incidents ive seen. If someone with more info knows speak up.

I know that you can take photographs on private property untill told otherwise. Even then they can only make you leave. This whole aerial aspect is bit confusing.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I know that you can take photographs on private property untill told otherwise. Even then they can only make you leave. This whole aerial aspect is bit confusing.

It falls under the whole you have no expectation of privacy in public. Its not against the law to take a picture while standing on private property (some exceptions exist but lets stick to the generic for this). The only violation would be trespassing, not picture taking, and unless you are taking pictures during a crime, erasing / seizing the camera is a no no (at least in my state).

Now if the drones are being used to look into windows, then an argument could be made its an invasion of privacy. Absent that so long as you are not violating FAA regs / City / state law (some place restriction on aerial lights(spot) / sounds) then there should not be an issue.

Its drawn partially from cases where police have used their cars / trees / etc to look over privacy fences. So long as the officer didn't trespass on the targeted property (curtlidge exceptions) then whatever he sees, he can use for warrants etc.

Some states have Arial rights (New York City) where your property extends from ground level up to so many feet, however I still cant see it used against a flight if nothing is present to be in the way.

So by that the activist were on the right. Curiously such rights by some peoples opinion should not extend to the government or authorities. Only private people should be able to fly drones by their thinking. I say the system better be equal to all or there will be gray areas.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So by that the activist were on the right. Curiously such rights by some peoples opinion should not extend to the government or authorities. Only private people should be able to fly drones by their thinking. I say the system better be equal to all or there will be gray areas.

The system is not equal in this regard as it favors the private individual over the government. Anything the police / government are flying will most likely be under closer scrutiny when its used for surveillance / official actions. If you think about those groups dont really have unofficial flights.. even training flights are official.

As far as shooting it down thats another story entirely. I know of no laws that allows a person to shoot something down over their property. If its constant where they are buzzing the house or something then they might have an argument..

Only in America would this occur.

Next time instead of using guns, they should use pork chops / lamb chops and baby back ribs smothered in BBQ sauce.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I know that you can take photographs on private property untill told otherwise. Even then they can only make you leave. This whole aerial aspect is bit confusing.

One of the current problems with UAV's has been real estate agents taking aerial shots of properties for sale in California, and to do so they fly at the same sort of altitudes that Police Helicopters use!

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yes in official capacity there of course should be oversight and such. Just like any other right that is excersized by normal people and also used by authority. Like the 1st amendment.

Is there a bag and size limit for drones down there?
A landowner has the right to deny a hunter access to downed game on their property, I wonder if the plantation owners could deny them the same if their UAV crashed?

This could be a great little part time business for someone.

Earl and Buba's drone control service.

Proves that americans have more rights for animals than for humans.

In other countries ,humans have more rights than animals only in USA its opposite.

If you are gonna to fly a drone into private property where a shootout is going on. And it gets shot down. Well that is irony.

Wow... so all the bashing of this group invading privacy but what about the current rush by every law enforcement arm in the country to do the exact same thing? Just about every sheriff's office and police department is sprouting woodies to get their hands on surveillance UAV's. Yeh, yeh, I know... they're only going to use it to find lost kids and escaped criminals... (cough, cough). So will they need a warrant to survey our private properties? If I see one flying over my proerty can I shoot it down?