SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A story picked up from Ars Technica:
While we’ve heard of consumer drones getting in the way of commercial airliners and obstructing firefighting operations, we've haven't heard of many cases where drones are shot out of the sky by a neighbor.
Eric Joe told Ars he was flying his homemade drone over his parents' orchard in Modesto, California late last year. After just three-and-a-half minutes of flight time, a single shotgun blast rang out from the neighbor's property at the low-flying, slow-moving hexacopter. The drone came crashing down instantly and was damaged beyond repair.
After the neighbor, Brett McBay, declined to cover the costs that he initially was amenable to pay, Joe took McBay to small claims court last month.
"Court finds that Mr. McBay acted unreasonably in having his son shoot the drone down regardless of whether it was over his property or not," the Stanislaus County Court Small Claims Division found.
According to Joe's attorney (and his cousin), Jesse Woo, if McBay doesn't pay within 30 days voluntarily—the end of June 2015—then they can go back to court to try to enforce the judgment.
"If he doesn't pay within 30 days we have to go through court processes to find out what kinds of assets he has and then to get a lien and get a judgement against his assets or wage garnishment," Woo said, adding that he fully intends to collect the money owed.
"We don't believe that the drone was over McBay's property—we maintain that it was briefly over the shared county access road. But even if it did, you're only privileged to use reasonable force in defense of property. Shooting a shotgun at this thing that isn't threatening your property isn't reasonable."
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @11:44AM
I think the only claim here is that the neighbor shot it while it was over a shared property which makes the shooter at fault. However it sounds like the judge et al is trying to say it's unreasonable to shoot it over his own property which I disagree with. The technology is only harmless camera fun because that's the limits of what we're commercial large scale able to do, that is about to change. With that in mind the next versions hovering over a neighbors property will be equipped with x-ray, thermal, and other technologies. There will be swarm groups of teenage tots flying drones around with high school buddies. I advocate shooting as many of them as possible upon entrance to a persons property and that this becomes the standard response to unwelcome drones with no consequences. If that seems dangerous to bystandards, I advocate a tunnel EMP shot to liquify and fuze it's circuitry while flying. While that may seem harsh it's a balancing act, and currently there is no balance in favor of personal property and privacy which means it's up to society to create a cultural tolerance standard the way we do with murders and door to door salesmen. Again it may seem harsh but the goddamn things can see, record, fly, be stealthy etc and to achieve that tiny little plot of personal space where your head is home takes so much monumental energy that having it disrupted by giant plastic mechanical mosquitoes seems wrong.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by schad on Monday June 29 2015, @12:22PM
The trouble with drones is that they can do things we're not used to people being able to do. Like if you've got a bathroom window that looks out into your wooded back yard, you probably don't bother with blinds. Well, now you have to. I'm not even worried about peeping toms -- we already have laws against that. (OK, I'm a little worried, because I'm not sure how you'd figure out who owned a peeping drone. So those laws might be completely unenforceable.) I'm really worried about Google or Amazon or whoever flying by on some unrelated task and recording 360-degree video the entire time. Then that footage ends up on the Internet. That happened with Google Street View, and the streets were already public space. How bad is it going to be when people have a reasonable expectation of privacy that suddenly no longer exists?
Plus, drones are fucking loud. If someone parked a drone on the street right outside my house and just sat there for an hour, I might start looking for a shotgun too.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Monday June 29 2015, @05:50PM
I would absolutely without hesitation shoot it down, *unless* I knew the neighbor, and they told me they wanted to fly around on my property possibly. I was right close to shooting at a helicopter the other day doing repeated low fly by's for over 20 minutes (As in as low as 200-300 feet above the property!). I get it, you like my mountain, and the gardens are beautiful. It only takes a few minutes and a pass or two, though. Pilot is a cock monkey, I'll just put that out there. Over an hour though? I guarantee you the FAA would be on the phone with me, as well as the Sheriff. There's no justification for that.
You and the AC are correct. Drones *are* direct and present threats to anonymity and privacy, and as near as I can tell, there exists no laws granting rights to trespass just because it's in the air, or under the ground. This judge is being a moron, although most likely ignorant and just believes it's no different than the older and traditional RC hobbyist kits. While the judge sees no threat, I can see practically no use cases that *don't* violate my privacy and anonymity when over *my* property. It's not 7 year old kids playing with harmless toys, these are adults, and they should damn well know better then to go on to somebody's property and start recording. You have the rights to defend yourself against such trespasses, and that includes against property of the trespasser.
New drones, with appropriate software, can hover in a quite stable fashion. Coupled with the technology the AC mentions, and it's unlawful surveillance of your property. Furthermore, given the ubiquitous nature of the technology, the nature of flight requiring surveillance, and the pilot has no leg to stand on. It's very reasonable to assume surveillance and a high tech form of peeping toms, in the absence of information otherwise. Google would get *killed* in court within a few seconds if the drones made its way on to private property and recorded something. I see no reason an average citizen shouldn't suffer the same consequences for removing peaceful enjoyment from a property owner.
At some point, it will become even more problematic with faster processors, more memory, and higher resolution equipment. Just how much tech *does* take to raise up a couple thousand feet, but take high resolution photos from several miles away? It won't matter if it's on property or not. Not that it matters, but there should be laws preventing that. Probably will be, but the government and some corporations will be excluded, naturally. As you said, I *do* have a bathroom without blinds overlooking a rural valley. There's a chance at some point that I will have no privacy at all with the horizon littered with drones. The new private areas will be ones with walls a hundred feet high.
The good news is, the first person to create a simple DIY drone area denial kit will clean up. My new hobby will be fucking with my neighbor's drone. Neighbor's drone wandered onto my property? Good... excellent.... release the hounds! :) The only thing better than the area denial kit, will be the drone collector kit capable of hijacking the drone and capturing it.
Get off my lawn is about to evolve.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @06:24PM
there exists no laws granting rights to trespass just because it's in the air
In fact the law states you do not own your airspace.
(Score: 4, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Monday June 29 2015, @06:33PM
there exists no laws granting rights to trespass just because it's in the air
In fact the law states you do not own your airspace.
Not true. You do own your airspace, up to a certain level. That varies from place to place (for instance, within a certain distance of an airport you own very little). But you do own a certain amount of airspace over your property.
It's sad that I had to point this out - you could have just checked The Book of Knowledge [wikipedia.org] before posting in ignorance.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by schad on Monday June 29 2015, @06:55PM
You own it up to 500 feet above the highest legitimate (not spiteful) point. Above that... it's unclear. It may be that you still own it, but air traffic gets an automatic easement. It may be that the government owns it. It may be that nobody owns it. It doesn't really matter; everyone agrees that the gubmint has control over it, so they own it in fact if not in law. You do have exclusive control in that 500-foot high box, though.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Tork on Monday June 29 2015, @09:42PM
I was right close to shooting at a helicopter the other day...
Ugh. You are one of the reasons I'm all for gun control.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:45AM
I can see you have not had helicopters circling around your house.
Believe me, a helicopter pilot thinking having a big heavy machine paid for by taxpayers gives him the right to make repeated passes over residences at low altitude is really a pain in the ass. Especially when they do it at midnight. Its as bad as a loud motorcycle aficionado who thinks it is cool to wake up an entire neighborhood by taking his loud noisy machine and running it around and around the block.
If I knew where that summabitch lived, I would be tempted to go rent a big loud motorcycle and do that to his neighborhood, and when called into court for disturbing the peace, play back what he's been doing with the helicopter and ask the judge to order BOTH of us to stop it. Too many helicopter pilots think a landing spot gives them the rights to fly right over neighborhoods - repeatedly and at low altitude, doing practice landings.
Had I known how much of a nuisance those helicopter pilots could be, I would not have bought a house here.
I thought the sports stadium only brought occasional bursts of very heavy traffic. I had no idea the heliport, not the stadium itself, was going to be such a noisy nuisance.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:00AM
I can see you have not had helicopters circling around your house.
No, it happens all the time at both my place of work and at my house. It's nowhere near bad enough to risk the pilot's life and the lives of those on the ground, not to mention their property. Perhaps I'm just lacking a sense of humor.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Funny) by tibman on Monday June 29 2015, @02:11PM
I think the deal is with taking law into his own hands. If your neighbor is infringing your rights, call the cops. That is what you pay them for.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 29 2015, @11:56PM
Cops are too far away to get there in time. They don't bother even if they could. We pay taxes, but they are diverted to other things. Like paying corporation for services that some senator got a kickback from.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday June 30 2015, @02:09AM
To get there in time because your neighbor is flying a drone over your property? That isn't an emergency so who cares if they take an hour.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:14PM
Kind of hard to prove your claim unless caught in the act and that issue with custody of evidence etc.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Tuesday June 30 2015, @04:20PM
Oh, come on! You could film everything on your smartphone and then show it to the cops when they finally do show up. It's not rocket science!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:37PM
Custody of evidence? how can they ensure you didn't make it up using your own drone? etc.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:06PM
What kind of backwards country are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that your local law enforcement rejects any/all video footage? Do they not have security cameras where you live?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:33PM
That's not how US law works. The police have no obligation to respond to your call. The police have no obligation to protect you or your rights. These issues have gone to court, and the courts have clearly stated that this is not their job. In the US, the law quite clearly states that you *should* take matters into your own hands; the police only exist to clean up the results.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday June 30 2015, @01:54PM
Hah, okay. I don't think everyone gets to be Judge Dredd. If you take matters into your own hands it has to at least make sense. As in, the police couldn't get here in time. In that case you should always take matters into your own hands. But a guy flying a drone on your property is not any kind of emergency. Just very annoying. But really those neighbors should have had some discussion first before just shooting the thing down. The guy doing the shooting didn't even shoot it on his own land either. Shooting your shotgun is a higher escalation than calling the cops.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Touché) by tathra on Tuesday June 30 2015, @06:29PM
then why is vigilantism illegal?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday June 30 2015, @07:02PM
Restored some context to the bit you quoted. You're expected to take matters into your own hands to protect yourself. Vigilantism is when protecting yourself transitions into attacking someone else.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday July 01 2015, @11:17AM
and how is shooting down something which presents no danger to you now or in the future protecting yourself? everyone has a right to self defense, but thats not whats going on in this case.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday July 01 2015, @01:05PM
Oh of course...I'm just arguing the general principle here that, if his rights were violated, he doesn't *have to* call the police and wait. He has every right to take care of the problem himself. That's what distinguishes rights from government-granted privileges.
But yes, in this specific case, it sounds quite plausible that his rights were never violated, and therefore the judge made the right call. If the drone was flying over his house or hovering outside his bedroom windows, he's fully justified taking it out. If the operator just accidentally crossed over the property line for a second or two, he's not. If the two neighbors had an ongoing dispute (which is what it sounds like) and the drone was buzzing that guy's property constantly (purely hypothetical) then...I'd say take it out, but try to get some evidence that the behavior is malicious in intent to CYA.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @03:03PM
So you think it is a good idea to allow anyone to fire upward in the air at a moving drone with no consequences? So they will always hit their target and nobody will ever have their bullet or shot find its way into another person?
I as a professional pessimist feel that civilians should never feel encouraged to fire any weapon in the air unless they know that there isn't a human being within a mile of their location. Seriously it is a really monumentally totally and in all cases bad bad idea. Someone will be killed eventually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @03:38PM
Yeah, I was thinking about that. EMP pulse would be preferable, less noisey too.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @04:46PM
But an old cyclotron out of a microwave with a focused emitter should be enough to short the kind of electronics these devices have in them, even at range. If you only allow them a 90-75 degree arc above the roofline, and combine them with a webcam, some software utilizing opencv, and a microphone(s) sensitive enough to pick up and directionalize drone rotor noise (most of the current ones are HORRIBLY noisy), you could easily disable any coming near your property without illegal discharge of a firearm. Now the FCC on the other hand...
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday June 29 2015, @11:36PM
That is one big ass microwave....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:33AM
But an old cyclotron out of a microwave ...
That is one big ass microwave....
It was a circular microwave, made pop-corn in seconds! Needed some even bigger-assed magnets, though.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Monday June 29 2015, @05:11PM
Shotgun pellets don't go nearly as far as you think.
http://www.njskeet.com/files/shotgun_statistics.pdf [njskeet.com]
They're actually preferred for things well off the ground (birds, squirrels, etc).
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday June 29 2015, @09:46PM
You beat me to it. We used to get a good idea of our 12-gauge shot spreads by firing into a river from atop a raised bank, and after seeing that spread they're a lot less scary. It's also why we don't fire pistols and rifles out there unless we're shooting at fixed targets with a lot of backstop.
This was a case that was kinda iffy, where the drone's position over the property line was borderline, so I don't support the guy shooting it down. If it were very obviously in his property, though, I would support him shooting it down, doubly so if the drone were equipped with a camera.
The person you replied to wondered about the wisdom of firing in air. I wonder about the wisdom of people thinking they can fly drones wherever the fuck they want even though there's the ever-present risk of them falling out of the sky and hitting somebody, or colliding with a helicopter, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @09:51PM
Shotguns aren't bad unless you're out hunting with the Vice President.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:23AM
The real life version of the 4chan "Are you fucking sorry" copypasta.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:01AM
Provided the aiming is correct. What would be the least dangerous ammunition one can use to disable a standard drone (30 cm wide?) ..?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @03:25AM
A Nerf football?
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:40PM
Can you really aim with precision of say 5 cm at a distance of 200 meters with that kind of "ammo" ?
It got a large surface area and may be prone to turbulence.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday June 30 2015, @05:16PM
Silly string : ) [wikipedia.org]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by rizole on Monday June 29 2015, @03:21PM
Er...it doesn't seem harsh, it is harsh. How about a quiet word first? Then by all means, shoot stuff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @03:41PM
Nope, that makes it okay the first time until there is a discussion which becomes the norm. This is a high tech piece of machinery with radical recording and visualizing capabilities far exceeding humans. It is not a kids baseball that went through the window, this is guided and targeted. Destroy it, no discussion, a line in the sand must be drawn and I'd say having a full spectrum piece of recording equipment that stealthily maneuvers in 3 dimensions is definitely a hostile intruder on private property, it is antithetical to the entire idea of 'private' property.
(Score: 3, Informative) by vux984 on Monday June 29 2015, @03:56PM
I'd say having a full spectrum piece of recording equipment that stealthily maneuvers in 3 dimensions
While I generally agree with you, its about as stealthy as a lawnmower.
In any case, I suspect these two neighbors already don't like each other; haven't been on speaking terms in a while; and that this is probably not the first morning neighbor-with-shotgun was annoyed by neighbor-with-flying-lawnmower-engine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @10:55PM
So you'd prefer assault with a deadly weapon to be the standard first-reaction to any dispute? I'll remember that the next time I see you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30 2015, @12:44AM
Destroy it, no discussion, a line in the sand must be drawn
"My buddies did not die face-down in the mud in Vietnam so some pervert can fly a camera over my property!! This aggression will not stand, man!" Walter Sobchak, "The Big Lebowski"
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Monday June 29 2015, @05:01PM
Some further details appear here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/man-shoots-downs-neighbors-hexacopter-in-rural-drone-shotgun-battle/ [arstechnica.com]
Evidently the drone owner asserts that (a) GPS data from the drone puts it over his property; (b) this is the third time his property has been hit by gunfire from the shooter.