I only brought that example up because people have been arrested for doing that and then claiming they had a right to privacy. It didn't fly. Google went through the same thing when people got photographed lying nude in their backyards. I have a hammock in backyard which you can clearly see on Google Earth. Can I sue Google for photographing me sleeping in that hammock? Answer, heck no.

I think the legal eagles within this forum would agree that matters of privacy are never as black and white as many people think - especially when someone is claiming to be a victim and has a well versed (and often creative) lawyer.

Your right to privacy varies, depending on lots and lots of variables (unaided eye, overt act to secure privacy, social norms, private property vs public property vs place of public accommodation, etc.) - also depends if you are talking about being actionable in civil or criminal court and whether your rights may have been violated by a citizen or a gov't employee. Beyond how the perceived privacy was breached, you also may have to deal with what was the purpose of the perceived invasion of privacy how was anything obtained during that alleged invasion of privacy used (was it sold, used to promote or endorse a product, used to harm your reputation, etc.).

There are a handful of privacy torts a plaintiff can explore - False light, public disclosure, commercial appropriation, intrusion on seclusion.....

You fly a drone up the Regency Tower and video through an open window of someone in the bathroom on the 25th floor stepping out of the shower and publish it, I guarantee you the drone operator is going to have a heck of a time defending their perceived rights against the apartment dweller.

As for the term 'drone'...


Now that the technology allows easily mountable, streaming, and recording video and photography from cameras on them. Suddenly people care about RC helicopters and planes.

This is literally plastic and styrofoam quad copters fitted with light-weight go-pros or various camera opportunities. Calling all of these things "drones" is just media's terror-hype BS.


I don't agree with this oversimplification. I really don't think the concern over drones is because of their name. The concern is over the fact that they are often far more powerful than traditional model RC aircraft and are so relatively simple to use that they are now in the hands of thousands of untrained civilians. There is also the merged concern of hobbyist drones vs. military style drones that are being utilized by law enforcement in a manner never seen before.

My concern isn't so much one of privacy. Its one of harassment and safety.

I can easily see situations where a neighbor, an ex, etc. utilizes a drone on a consistent basis to harass another.

I also see situations were an untrained pilot flies either an ill maintained drone or flies in ill-advised weather conditions (wind) and a drone goes down while hovering over an H&8th event etc. and someone is severely hurt or even killed.

Just like cars.

Look, I get that they are different. A lot different. But it's going to be hard to make the case that we are going to regulate them more than we do cars, for example. People do really stupid things with cars every second of every day, but that doesn't stop us from allowing it. I'm not disagreeing with you Brian. But I do wonder if we're going to really try to 'take a stand' on this issue. My guess is no.

I think I've stated before, I believe drone operators (not Sharper Image AR Drone operators) should be regulated, licensed and carry insurance....... what do you know...... just like CARS. So, I'm not advocating regulation that goes beyond cars.

Its still a rare thing to see a drone being flown in public. However, it is VERY obvious we are going to see more and more and more of these things - especially being used commercially. Regulations need to be put in place now before it becomes a problem. In the not too far future every media outlet will have one or more drones, and I'm certain virtually every event will have one or more drones broadcasting coverage - paid for by some sponsor. I'm just saying lets protect the public now instead of after some major incidents.

What is to stop some whacko from attaching an explosive device to his drone and then piloting his lil toy to, say, an OU Football game?????

What is to stop some whacko from attaching an explosive device to his drone and then piloting his lil toy to, say, an OU Football game?????

Getting enough payload to do any real damage. Also, that window on the 25th floor; already been done - no privacy at altitude either. What do you think all those telecopes are doing in NYC?

Getting enough payload to do any real damage. Also, that window on the 25th floor; already been done - no privacy at altitude either. What do you think all those telecopes are doing in NYC?

Well, JTF, if that program about Amazon delivering books at a customers front porch was for real...

If my post came across as disagreeing with this point, I didn't mean that. Let me clarify, on the issue of safety, we agree. You'll have to carry some kind of insurance and either have a permit or a license. On the issue of privacy, I don't think this will change much beyond adding some clarifying language to some code.

I agree. The privacy laws as they exist now are probably adequate. However, as with lots of technology, this may require a fresh interoperation of some laws and how they should be applied.

Getting enough payload to do any real damage. Also, that window on the 25th floor; already been done - no privacy at altitude either. What do you think all those telecopes are doing in NYC?

You're leaving out my clarification.... 'and publishing it' - which is what can get you in really hot legal water (unless you're seeking protection under some sort of 'artistic expression')

This will also depend on your state. Some states have been known to use wiretap laws when photographers capture audio along with their images.

Oklahoma City realty agents react to FAA drone notice | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-realty-agents-react-to-faa-drone-notice/article/4972808)

If the FCC can manage invisible airwaves (e.g. fining people with pirate broadcasts), I suspect the FAA will find a way to manage very visible drones...

The FCC is only good at managing pirate broadcasters who are foolish enough to be easy kills by trying to be on the air 24 hrs a day every day. The FCC seldom conducts visits or raids on weekends and holidays. So that's when wise pirates come out. In turn, I'm sure the FAA will be able to manage drones, provided their owners keep them up long enough to notice.