- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 1,380
- Reaction score
- 853
- Location
- Right Above You
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
again, currently no conviction.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-man-acquitted-in-drone-surveillance-case-1435008665
New York Man Acquitted in Drone-Surveillance Case
Defendant had been accused of using drone for unlawful surveillance
By
JACK NICAS
June 22, 2015 5:32 p.m. ET
A New York jury acquitted a man charged with using a drone to spy into windows of a doctor’s office, one of the first tests for how existing privacy laws apply to drones.
David Beesmer, a 50-year-old mobile-home salesman in upstate New York, was found not guilty of attempted unlawful surveillance on Monday in local court in Ulster, N.Y. He faced a year in jail if convicted.
New York State Police arrested Mr. Beesmer last year after patients inside an Ulster medical building complained about a drone hovering outside. Mr. Beesmer said he was test-flying his new drone, a Phantom made by Chinese drone maker SZ DJI Technology Co., and that its camera couldn’t see into the building’s tinted windows.
Privacy advocates are concerned that the proliferation of affordable drones carrying high-definition cameras will enable drone users to peek over fences and into windows. Lawmakers have proposed federal drone-related privacy rules, and several states have passed such laws.
Drone users and advocates argue that existing state and local privacy laws suffice to protect U.S. citizens from potential drone surveillance.
“This case shows there’s an existing legal framework to address misconduct with a drone, when it actually occurs,” said Brendan Schulman, a New York attorney who specializes in drone-related cases. “This person didn’t do anything wrong, but the fact the prosecutor could use an existing surveillance statute to address the alleged privacy invasion shows us we don’t need drone-specific legislation.”
Eric Schneider, Mr. Beesmer’s attorney, said the case shows how government officials are overreacting to a new technology. He said the prosecution focused mainly on the potential harm of drones, rather than the specific evidence of the incident. “The drones were on trial,” he said.
Ulster County District Attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Write to Jack Nicas at [email protected]
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-man-acquitted-in-drone-surveillance-case-1435008665
New York Man Acquitted in Drone-Surveillance Case
Defendant had been accused of using drone for unlawful surveillance
By
JACK NICAS
June 22, 2015 5:32 p.m. ET
A New York jury acquitted a man charged with using a drone to spy into windows of a doctor’s office, one of the first tests for how existing privacy laws apply to drones.
David Beesmer, a 50-year-old mobile-home salesman in upstate New York, was found not guilty of attempted unlawful surveillance on Monday in local court in Ulster, N.Y. He faced a year in jail if convicted.
New York State Police arrested Mr. Beesmer last year after patients inside an Ulster medical building complained about a drone hovering outside. Mr. Beesmer said he was test-flying his new drone, a Phantom made by Chinese drone maker SZ DJI Technology Co., and that its camera couldn’t see into the building’s tinted windows.
Privacy advocates are concerned that the proliferation of affordable drones carrying high-definition cameras will enable drone users to peek over fences and into windows. Lawmakers have proposed federal drone-related privacy rules, and several states have passed such laws.
Drone users and advocates argue that existing state and local privacy laws suffice to protect U.S. citizens from potential drone surveillance.
“This case shows there’s an existing legal framework to address misconduct with a drone, when it actually occurs,” said Brendan Schulman, a New York attorney who specializes in drone-related cases. “This person didn’t do anything wrong, but the fact the prosecutor could use an existing surveillance statute to address the alleged privacy invasion shows us we don’t need drone-specific legislation.”
Eric Schneider, Mr. Beesmer’s attorney, said the case shows how government officials are overreacting to a new technology. He said the prosecution focused mainly on the potential harm of drones, rather than the specific evidence of the incident. “The drones were on trial,” he said.
Ulster County District Attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Write to Jack Nicas at [email protected]
