Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

Poll: Invasion of Privacy or Not...

Does this video constitute Invasion of Privacy under CA AB-856?

  • No

    Votes: 17 68.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 8 32.0%

  • Total voters
    25
In Texas that would be breaking the law since you focused solely on her property and you even stopped and hovered.

Which law Gregg?
If the person were to receive a ticket, the police would have to write the number of the law that was broken, on the ticket.
Which law is being broken Gregg, please tell.

Most of you guys use the word Law and Illegal so incredibly loosely, when in fact, each and every law is very precise and specific with numbers associated with them for identification. I would love to know which LAW in TX would be broken.
 
Which law Gregg?
If the person were to receive a ticket, the police would have to write the number of the law that was broken, on the ticket.
Which law is being broken Gregg, please tell.

Most of you guys use the word Law and Illegal so incredibly loosely, when in fact, each and every law is very precise and specific with numbers associated with them for identification. I would love to know which LAW in TX would be broken.


I believe he is referring to this.

GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 423. USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
 
Yes and specifically it's the House Bill 912 - Texas Privacy Act as well. It prevents unauthorized filming from a UAV of private property without the consent of the property owner. If it's deemed to be that you were focusing solely on such property. If you are taking pictures of the city for example and there's a property in the image that is private, you aren't focusing on that private property, so you aren't in violation. However, in the video above, you would be for sure. Not only is it focused on during flight, the UAV hovers over the property while filming. A definite violation of privacy.
http://overaustin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/HB-912-Texas-Privacy-Act.pdf

One of our local pilots here in Austin put together a nice summary of the rules in Texas. It's being made available as a guide and not a binding legal representation. He just wanted to consolidate the information into a single page to make it easier for new pilots in the area to get up to speed on the rules and regulations.
Drone Rules and Regulations for Austin, Texas Area Pilots | Over Austin
 
One of our local pilots here in Austin put together a nice summary of the rules in Texas. for Austin, Texas Area Pilots | Over Austin

Thanks for posting the bill, where is the date, is it even in effect?
Now you are using the words "rule".
Which are they, "rules" or "laws" ???

I just read the bill, (where is the date?)
It would be incredibly impossible to prosecute that charge without voluntary admission of guilt. (like posting a video - doh)
(there is no way a judge is going to issue a search warrant on a class C misdemeanor, hoping to find an image on a sd card and then how do you prove it was in a camera on a uav and not on a kite or balloon). And there is simply no way to prove when the cam is on or off.

(at least that bill should make the droneaphobes "feel" better" - lol
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting the bill, where is the date, is it even in effect?
Now you are using the words "rule".
Which are they, "rules" or "laws" ???

I just read the bill, (where is the date?)
It would be incredibly impossible to prosecute that charge without voluntary admission of guilt. (like posting a video - doh)
(there is no way a judge is going to issue a search warrant on a class C misdemeanor, hoping to find an image on a sd card and then how do you prove it was in a camera on a uav and not on a kite or balloon). And there is simply no way to prove when the cam is on or off.

(at least that bill should make the droneaphobes "feel" better" - lol
There is both in that link I posted. Rules for some links and Laws for others. For the House Bill, you have to actually read to the end, bottom of last page indicates when it went into effect.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2013
 
I agree that way of thinking all flying would be illegal.
But what happens, if while flying over someone's back yard you record them butt naked. Don't even realize it till you get home. Not intentionally just out of habit of hitting record soon as you take off.
Who's at fault now?
I fly over people's property routinely
I just don't record start to finish anymore. Trap off

Being a photographer and capturing countless people in compromising positions; this is where your morals come into play. In the listed example I don't see anything immoral about this flight. My opinion is part of the issue is, people feel more empowered when going up against who they assume to be just an average citizen while more often than not their privacy is being invaded by organizations that they wouldn't bat an eyelash at.
 
Its not illegal generally to fly over any property, thats not what I'm trying to suggest. I am talking here of of flying over a particular personal property where that is the focus and purpose of the shot.

I am not trying to make a legal case, just being polite to the owner.
Agree it's polite not to fly over a property with the intent to film it without permission. And yes, Google earth has this covered so no need to continuously fly over someones home Google Earth : Oprah Winfrey House (1633 E Valley Rd, Montecito, CA 93108, USA) - Rodsbot.com Don't see the point of the flight unless somebody is just trying to make a point.

Poll, how many of us would like to have people flying over our homes capturing footage and posting it in the interwebs?
 
I'm at 400' with a uav. A piper cub is at 500' and circles the same area. So what?
 
Last edited:
I'm at 400' with a uav. A piper cub is at 500' and circles the same area. So what?

When I was a young buck, I worked for an outfit that flew a Piper 172 over houses at 500 feet. I was strapped in and hanging out the door (which had been removed) shooting houses with a zoom lens on B&W film (remember film?). That was processed and printed on paper for hand tinting. A salesman would then go door to door and attempt to sell those "home portraits" to the home owners.

No one ever said--not once--anything about invasion of privacy. The times they are a-changin'

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
 
Funny thread,

Most people here have opinions and virtually no understanding of US law. Additionally, the logic used tends to reflect opinion of what they may prefer. How about answering the questions with facts.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, is not implied by putting up fences and being able to see thru, around or over top of. Additionally, windows are not a barrier to privacy. Your back yard may be private, but viewing it from a satellite, helicopter or drone doesn't change the expectation, just the capability. Their is no law that that says you can view a house from the window of aircraft but then says if you use a camera with a 400mm lens it becomes an invasion of privacy.

Invasion of privacy requires a unique action in which the invader seeks to hide, disguise, or otherwise conceal their activities while also gathering data, information, images (stimulation) or otherwise.

For example, software that is hidden from you that collect data, hiding a camera in a bathroom, hiding the crap in a Port-a-potty, recording a phone call are all examples of invading ones privacy on different levels. Privacy is not a constitutional right, many laws are created to protect privacy indirectly. I can photograph people at a park, but I cannot display images of children 14 and under on the web because of the Child Protection Act, I can't use the likeness of someone (images) for commercial purposes without a model release, or I am liable. But privacy is not technically protected.

As drones, pardon me but I like drones over UAS, become prolific they will become as common as CCTV cameras and will simply be apart of our expectation.

Perhaps a better question, and the one I bet will most likely be the real problem is property and trespass. The FAA has a difficult task of trying to declare their position that they own all airspace that is outdoors. U.S. vs Causby went to the Supreme Court and the old 83' foot rule technically didn't define who owns the airspace over your house. If the homeowner owns it, and you penetrate the boundary then you are trespassing. If the FAA owns it then you're you're not. By the way the FAA does not have jurisdiction on privacy. In fact everything they regulate is by default public.

Suffice to say, I can hover in your back yard and its legal. That's not say it wouldnt be frowned upon and cause a few problems but, the lower courts and case law up to this point would suggest that if the FAA declares all airspace public then it truely is and Oprah's backyard is no exception.
 
HB 912 stands little to no chance of holding up in court, Its just another case where politicians are trying to do something where they have no jurisdiction.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
22,277
Messages
210,655
Members
34,328
Latest member
engko