SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words dept.
An organization representing news photographers urged California Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday to veto legislation that would restrict the use of drones over private property without the owner's consent.
The legislation would make flying a drone less than 350 feet above private property without consent a trespass violation. Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), author of the bill, has said the measure would prevent camera-equipped drones from peeping into windows or other invasions of privacy.
Additional coverage has been seen in Forbes magazine of the original bill and the significantly different amended bill. Most of the differences include the removal of the provisions that would require the person whose property is being overflown to actually prove that there was some intent to invade their privacy.
The second blog post (on the amended bill) goes into some detail as to Amazon's proposal for a high speed transit zone in the 200ft-400ft range. The Federal Aviation Administration requires any structure that goes above 200 feet to be marked with lights, etc, as an obstruction to aviation.
Is it possible that the removal of the provisions that would require proof of intent will allow for baseless lawsuits, and be the precursor to the outright outlawing of drones in California?
Another thought in this, is this law being driven by the celebrities in their quest to prevent the paparazzi from invading their private lives?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by lentilla on Sunday September 06 2015, @01:25PM
It's faily obvious that my property rights don't extend into infinity.
It might be "fairly obvious" to us today but I submit that this is simply a quirk resulting from the timeline of technological development rather than something necessarily self-evident.
Say for instance we were happily living in the year 1850. It's fairly obvious that the guy peering in your rear window is a Bad Person - especially since he had to climb through your neighbour's yard and subdue Gnasher the guard dog to do so.
Suddenly, it's the year 2015. Anyone can pop into the local store, plonk down a small amount of cash and walk out with drone equipped with a high-resolution camera. Everyone would be up in arms and a law (similar to the one we are discussing) would have been passed before the week was out.
You see, the only reason we have a concept that there is a limit to property rights above our heads is that we have had time to acclimatise to the idea. Kites have been around for a long time but flying a [man-lifting] kite over someone's property is hard work. Then came planes which were eminently useful to people. People eventually left the planet. It is only now that an average Random Joe can fly over my house, take high resolution footage through my rear-facing second story window, and fly away - with a very good chance of remaining anonymous. A decade ago simply getting footage of my backyard on the sly involved a million-dollar spy plane. Now anyone can hover a drone at any window - and if they don't repeat the exercise - are very unlikely to get caught.
Personally, I'm not convinced that anyone should have the right to take photos or video of non-public areas of my property (without my express permission). If you can't see it from the street, you shouldn't really be looking, let alone taking photos, and especially disseminating that footage publicly (which is especially relevant for the Press). My neighbours can see over the adjoining fence - but even then each society sets limits on the bounds of propriety - having a look over the fence is usually fine but using a periscope to look into a courtyard would generally be frowned upon - if not outright against the law.
TLDR summary:
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:15PM
Great post - but I would argue that there is some value in giving the press some latitude. We see that already, regarding activities by the police. If I, Joe Blow, happen to approach a police barricade, the cops are often unwilling to acknowledge my presence, let alone answer questions. Let someone with press credentials and a camera show up, the cops are happy to answer questions. The answers may be honest, or evasive, but they mostly talk to a member of the press.