Florida new law takes affect tomorrow!

[Markus DeBose]

DRONES

--- SB 766, prohibits the use of aerial drones to capture images that could infringe on the privacy of property owners or occupants. The law allows people to initiate a civil action against a person, state agency or political subdivision that violates the prohibitions. However, the prohibition doesn't include agencies countering the risk of terrorist attacks, police who obtain search warrants that authorize the use of drones, property appraisers making tax assessments, and utilities maintaining their facilities.

 

[Drone Mastery]

I especially like "Tax Assessments" What a Joke!

 

[Outta Control]

LOL

 

[Carlsberg]

DRONES

--- SB 766, prohibits the use of aerial drones to capture images that could infringe on the privacy of property owners or occupants. The law allows people to initiate a civil action against a person, state agency or political subdivision that violates the prohibitions. However, the prohibition doesn't include agencies countering the risk of terrorist attacks, police who obtain search warrants that authorize the use of drones, property appraisers making tax assessments, and utilities maintaining their facilities.

Please tell us how Google Earth fairs in all this

 

[huppe]

So if one of Florida pilotes offering to be a terrorist and all other pilots are chasing him it's legal!

 

[DronePilot]

Don't we have enough privacy laws already?

 

[mdomeny]

politians a bored and make these nonsense laws to be able to say: we are hard at work!!!
i guess... lol

 

[SOCAL 1]

So does Google have an exemption? Google go slap these guys on the back of their heads to wake them up. So if I am on my property flying and I can see my neighbors house I am breaking the law.

 

[damoncooper]

Google isn't using drones though. Plus, any street views they have I presume get grandfathered as they were taken prior to the law taking effect.

 

[DCGOO]

So if one of Florida pilotes offering to be a terrorist and all other pilots are chasing him it's legal!

All you need is a "stinking badge" Lol

 

[Soflms]

Another reason for me to leave Florida. So pretty much don't fly your drone if it's not directly for a paid gig...with your 333 exemption. People need to quit assuming they're important enough for me to want to film. No dude, I cant see you in your boat from half a mile away. I just don't understand why people make such a big deal about a flying camera.

 

[gray52]

Would they not have to prove you have taken footage? So just flying is still legal? It's the filming which is not? As they sd is so small just throw it if the police turn up or just eat it! Lol, works for drug dealers!

 

[Soflms]

We fly "drones". Way worse than drug dealers! lol Eat your SD card! haha love it. I used to do a lot of riding with my gopro (and lets just say I love wheelies) so I looked into the rules and regs on if police had a right to view the contents of the SD card without enough probably cause or a warrant, but I think it differs state to state. Who knows what the hell the rules are for UAV's. I dont think the FAA even has a full grip on implementing the technology into airspace safely, let alone a full list of rules concerning privacy. Hasn't everyone googled Drone Boning by now? talk about privacy issues HA

 

[Thresher]

So basically flying a drone just became illegal in florida?

 

[Markus DeBose]

All depends on what assholes you're around! Lol Florida is the number one state where you can sue for just about anything and get paid! Smh! Stupid as laws and dumb people!

 

[InspiredOne]

Actually, it states: "Prohibiting a person... from using a drone to capture an image of privately owned real property or of the owner... with the intent to conduct surveillance..."

Surveillance is defined as: "close watch kept over someone or something."

Simply flying over (passing over) a property, at say a hundred feet or more, would not necessarily qualify as "surveillance." That will be the point to debate in the court room. As usual, it all goes back to "intent" as in the vast majority of all such cases.

 

[Thresher]

Actually, it states: "Prohibiting a person... from using a drone to capture an image of privately owned real property or of the owner... with the intent to conduct surveillance..."

Surveillance is defined as: "close watch kept over someone or something."

Simply flying over (passing over) a property, at say a hundred feet or more, would not necessarily qualify as "surveillance." That will the point to debate in the court room. As usual, it all goes back to "intent" as in the vast majority of all such cases.

Yea I completely got the wrong link, sorry about that.

 

[purezerg]

oh trust me. you guys still have it easy. in china, Beijing it's a 122km diameter no fly zone. I had to resort to taping an aluminium foil over the GPS receiver and turning off the NVidia shield GPS so that the software doesn't know where the bird is and flying it completely in ATTI mode.
because of Beijing's no fly zone, I have learned well how to fly within no fly zone with ATTI mode.

 

[RGD]

DRONES

--- SB 766, prohibits the use of aerial drones to capture images that could infringe on the privacy of property owners or occupants. The law allows people to initiate a civil action against a person, state agency or political subdivision that violates the prohibitions. However, the prohibition doesn't include agencies countering the risk of terrorist attacks, police who obtain search warrants that authorize the use of drones, property appraisers making tax assessments, and utilities maintaining their facilities.

As a Florida flyer I wonder where this goes. If I am out shooting beach video or boats going out the inlet or even just general aerial shots and they are posted on my web site is sounds like I could find myself in court. I guess we will have to wait and seen some cases tested on this.

 

[Blue Bird]

Here is the PDF File as it is written.