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

Drone pilot faces criminal charges in privacy case

Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
383
Age
47
Reminds me of my neighbour who complained about my Inspire when he said that he didn't want "that drone " above his property.I told him i was not interested in his house anyway.I was quiet surprised that his son was flying a mini drone with camera 2 weeks later.When I told him about my privacy I was told that it was just a toy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kilrah and JimPA
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
204
Reaction score
110
Age
38
What would make a big difference was whether this was flying at 20 feet or 100 feet...I'm guessing this is just one man's overreaction.

Besides, my DSLR with telephoto lens from behind my curtains is much stealthier!
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
198
Reaction score
47
Age
99
good thing the inspire 1 is a quad copter and not a drone propelled by a turbine engine armed will hell fire rockets with a camera as good as a spy satellite by a guy in a bunker 500 miles away

the guy in the article doesn't have to worry. last i checked in america innocent until proven guilty. so who ever is charging him with a privacy crime has to prove the pilot was taking pictures.... delete those if he was... good luck with that in court with a jury with no proof not to mention the cost of taking that person to court. what if it was a parent beating their child and a inspire caught it on camera by a neighbor piloting it... now what r/c aircraft haters?

it's no problem if it's a r/c toy with no camera on it in someone's back yard. but all of the sudden everything changes if it has a lens.

social media there is no privacy anymore, everyone posts everything they do instantly on face book or whatever app that is being tracked by a company for marketing, advertising purposes. privacy is a myth unless you don't have a cell phone and don't use the internet at all.
 
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
171
Reaction score
92
Age
64
Location
SF Bay Area
In the last paragraph....
" He had not yet been charged with a crime. That will depend on whether his neighbor decides to file formal charges."
 
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
171
Reaction score
92
Age
64
Location
SF Bay Area
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
198
Reaction score
47
Age
99
84 feet and it's illegal? where is this law written down? and i highly doubt it's enforced in all 50 states and even harder to prove in court when you toss your i 1 in the river or burn it to a pile of ash to get rid of the flight recorder data. someone would have to snap a picture of it and even then prove the pilot was recording because remember, if it doesn't have a camera no one gives a **** if it's 20 feet over their head

i glanced over the invasion of privacy act and honestly i think were all pretty safe. most of the laws are written around collecting information, what people say to each other and over phones then selling that information for profit. the inspire has no microphone so were good there. the other big one was recording people in custody of law enforcement, that's a big no no but again no microphone and since the news chopper can video record a bunch of cops beating a guy in the desert for 5 minuets and get away with it i think were all in the clear for just recreational flying around our houses and neighbors.

its a complete double standard. use the inspire for blackmail against someone your guilty. record a crime or someone breaking the law or government officials breaking the law and then what is it, are you a hero or do you need a defense lawyer.

individuals DO NOT want to go to court. the only people who win in lawsuits are the lawyers. if someone wants to go after a r/c pilot for invasion of privacy it's going to cost both parties 10,000's of thousands of dollars just to prepare a case. it's not worth the time or money, who ever is pissed off should just get a wrist rocket and handle it their self, and that's probably what they will do.

us as inspire pilots should use good judgment, if someone comes over to you and says don't fly that thing near my house, dont do it, keep your distance. simple.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2015
Messages
72
Reaction score
21
I have permission from a local farmer to fly in his fields. Last week I was reported to the land owner for "spying on dog walkers." I didn't even see anybody and there are no public footpaths in the huge field I was flying in so this person must have been at least 200 metres from the aircraft. My big question is why these people believe they are interesting enough to be spied upon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sirnikolas
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
174
Reaction score
183
Location
Texas
Eh, this is just more anti-drone news bs!! Unless you are hovering directly over someone's property taking video or pictures with the intent to surveil their property, there is nothing illegal flying over someones's house.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
853
Location
Right Above You
Website
www.hoveranalytics.com
So for discussion sake. Let us say the subject was found guilty for such action. My question is what damages has that land owner suffered. What would be the right amount of retribution for plaintiff.

I would say zip. Plus also that drone pilot most likely has no monetary value to provide and if the indictment was for trespassing then yes he will serve but again that is fairly hard to prove this because they have to prove he had a malicious intent to enter the property to invoke fear or harm.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
198
Reaction score
47
Age
99
So for discussion sake. Let us say the subject was found guilty for such action. My question is what damages has that land owner suffered. What would be the right amount of retribution for plaintiff.

I would say zip. Plus also that drone pilot most likely has no monetary value to provide and if the indictment was for trespassing then yes he will serve but again that is fairly hard to prove this because they have to prove he had a malicious intent to enter the property to invoke fear or harm.
read the case... i dunno, this was the government flying over his house with big airplanes, not a civilian with a 2x2 foot quad coopter lol. 86feet probably wouldn't apply to us, if it does then yeah something changed since 1946.

these privacy laws don't really compensate someone for "damages" sure punitive damages are always there but the big fear is the time in prison if convicted and the fines to the accused. again if there is nothing in it for the lawyer it's going to be the plaintiff's time and money to come after you, unless they are a lawyer. i doubt a person could "come out ahead" for going after a i1 pilot for privacy or trespassing.

i think anything but putting the thing 2 feet from someone's window for 5 minuets is just fine.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
1,882
Reaction score
733
don't do something that a reasonable person would think of as dumb or obnoxious and you will probably be OK.
TBH that IMO is the very single sentence that law should be made of, anywhere and for all subjects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DustyVisor
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
853
Location
Right Above You
Website
www.hoveranalytics.com
read the case... i dunno, this was the government flying over his house with big airplanes, not a civilian with a 2x2 foot quad coopter lol. 86feet probably wouldn't apply to us, if it does then yeah something changed since 1946.

these privacy laws don't really compensate someone for "damages" sure punitive damages are always there but the big fear is the time in prison if convicted and the fines to the accused. again if there is nothing in it for the lawyer it's going to be the plaintiff's time and money to come after you, unless they are a lawyer. i doubt a person could "come out ahead" for going after a i1 pilot for privacy or trespassing.

i think anything but putting the thing 2 feet from someone's window for 5 minuets is just fine.

Yes I've read the case and most of the different Law Schools interpretation online.

I would argue that since the Feds calls our drones aircraft it should fall in the same category as a passenger plane but it is lighter and smaller.

I agree I would doubt any plaintiff will come out ahead or even break even in this case and again you have to prove that the pilot had a malicious intent to trespass.

So to add to this I can only state the law in The People's Republic of Kalifornia.

The Legal Definition of Penal Code 602 PC "Trespass" in California
Penal Code 602 PC (together with related sections of the California Penal Code) describes over thirty activities that are considered criminal trespass.7

The most common acts that are prohibited by California trespassing laws include:

  • entering someone else's property with the intent to damage that property,8
  • entering someone else's property with the intent to interfere with or obstruct the business activities that are conducted there,9
  • entering and "occupying" another person's property without permission,10 and
  • refusing to leave private property after you've been asked to do so.11
As y'all can see they have to prove you had intent and a motive to trespass onto one's property.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
198
Reaction score
47
Age
99
yeah outta control that pretty much sums it up. if you are flying over someone's house and they call the cops without asking you to go away fist then nothing to fear and that's private property, good luck with this if your on pubic property. and again, dji is in compliance with the FAA with no-fly zones.

and technically your not not trespassing at all. unless you land in their yard or on the roof it's just air space, no one gets pissed when the police chopper fly's over with the spot light on or the news choppers recording with much bigger cameras. if they can do it, we can too.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
119
Reaction score
72
Age
50
How does this play with Squatters Rights? Say for instance I land on my neighbor's house with my Inspire and he doesn't notice for long enough, couldn't I lay claim to his property???? lol

This is a joke of course, but at the end of the day, it's scary how someone can move into your house w/o permission and you have to go to court to evict them, but someone flies an Inspire over my property and I have the right to put them in jail? Seems legit to me. lol

Yes I've read the case and most of the different Law Schools interpretation online.

I would argue that since the Feds calls our drones aircraft it should fall in the same category as a passenger plane but it is lighter and smaller.

I agree I would doubt any plaintiff will come out ahead or even break even in this case and again you have to prove that the pilot had a malicious intent to trespass.

So to add to this I can only state the law in The People's Republic of Kalifornia.

The Legal Definition of Penal Code 602 PC "Trespass" in California
Penal Code 602 PC (together with related sections of the California Penal Code) describes over thirty activities that are considered criminal trespass.7

The most common acts that are prohibited by California trespassing laws include:

  • entering someone else's property with the intent to damage that property,8
  • entering someone else's property with the intent to interfere with or obstruct the business activities that are conducted there,9
  • entering and "occupying" another person's property without permission,10 and
  • refusing to leave private property after you've been asked to do so.11
As y'all can see they have to prove you had intent and a motive to trespass onto one's property.
 
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
171
Reaction score
92
Age
64
Location
SF Bay Area
y..., dji is in compliance with the FAA with no-fly zones.....
DJI's no fly criteria are not identical to the FAA'a. DJI is 3 miles with an ascending angle, and the FAA is 5 miles from an operating control tower. So DJI will actually let you get as much as 2 miles inside of the FAA limit (depending up on your altitude.).
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
19,811
Messages
193,419
Members
29,184
Latest member
Houser