No it’s not, not if you want to be able to control the camera with any degree of accuracy. Sure you can clamp anything you want to the drone, great now how do you aim the camera, focus it, start and stop recording etc?
As I mentioned before it’s also NOT possible to connect a powerful zoom lens to any commonly available drone because a) its too heavy b) the more you zoom in the more the movements of the drone get magnified so you can’t focus on any one item, its not stable enough.
The drone that was shot down was a DJI Phantom 2, it has a wide angle lens, it wasn’t capable of “spying” on his daughter. You’d have to be literally about 3 meters from the window to get a clear shot showing anything interesting.
This is what the video from a DJI Phantom 2 looks like:
Yes, it’s possible to do so depending on what drone it’s being used. The one on this incident wouldn’t be able to carry anything heavier than a small compact camera on a stabilized gimbal. Of course bigger ones can carry better and more accurate cameras, after all Predators can lock their camera on a single person from a long distance.
But that’s not really the issue, after all you could also set up a camera on a tripod with a large zoom lens on an elevated position and ogle people to your hearts content without being noticed; and nobody is talking about the evil of zoom lenses.
I believe there’s no small amount of paranoia over “drones” with cameras, like it happened when cell phones with cameras became a thing, there was no small amount of hysteria about perverts and what they’d do with them; and they were right to some extent but as a society we moved on from those irrational fears over some new technology into… a new set of irrational fears over some new technology.
Ain’t social progress grand?
What I posted expresses concern that the combination of the FAAs’ current position and case law on expectation of privacy does indeed make for an untenable circumstance.
It is throughout the country illegal to film where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy; case law has established that viewing from navigable airspace above a person’s property (at least with the naked eye) does not violate an expectation of privacy.
This case will be interesting to follow to see if the FAA gets itself involved.
A sensible compromise would be to create it a law making it illegal to record using a drone below a minimum height (unless you have the land owners permission). 150 feet would be a reasonable height. From 150 feet up, you’re not going to get much in the way of identifiable people unless you are using a very expensive specialised drone. Certainly none of the off the shelf ones would clearly identify individuals from that height.
As a responsible drone owner that uses one for commercial purposes I’d fully support such a law… (if I was in the US, which I’m not).
Our society does not and cannot tolerate individuals destroying other people’s property merely on the basis that they do not like what they think or imagine the other person may be doing with it.
coremelt I see some problems with that as a compromise -
First no one other than the operator knows if a drone is recording (or even broadcasting to the operator without recording) or not.
Second a rule should stand up to time and possibly changing technology.
Some space (150 feet seems like a fine arbitrary number to me) above building tops level should be considered as “trespassing” and I think the viewing/recording height rules will have to include specifying “with magnification no greater than that provided by the naked eye” and greater expectations of privacy declared for any technology that provides enhanced magnification, be that by drones owned and operated by private individuals or by governmental bodies.
Under this law couldnt the drone owners be guilty of a crime in California? Surely the law applies to any child and not just the kids of whatever a celebrity is?
You mean the guys who had their drone shot down? I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest they were harassing a child. For example, a child can be annoyed by a neighbor’s lawnmower, but that doesn’t mean that the person mowing the lawn is harassing the child.
In this case, the daughter of the homeowner may have been annoyed by a drone being in the area, but given the discrepancies in the homeowner’s story (he really needed three shots to destroy a drone that, by his estimation, was 60-80 feet off the ground, while the telemetry indicates it was 290 feet off the ground?), it sure doesn’t seem that the drone owners were doing anything intentionally obnoxious for no legitimate purpose.
Reading the California statute, it is perfectly clear to me that the law would have no effect on this situation. Aside from no evidence of harassment, the law requires the drone owners to harass a child on the basis of the parent’s employment. The drone owners were clearly not doing something because of the homeowner’s job, whatever distinguished profession he may have.
Its perfectly reasonable to believe that the daughter of the homeowner suffered emotional distress from the drone hovering above her as she sunbathed on private property and not in public view.
Im not sure that a law can only protect the children of a class of people. Im not a lawyer but I would like to think the child of any one of us would expect the same protections as the child of a celebrity.
It appears that drone owners have a PR problem. Many people don’t like the idea of having a heavy drone hovering over their heads. A drone with a camera is an even bigger problem. Or a drone delivering a toaster, car tire, or a SodaStream. Plus, the people who object to drone invasions should also be considered registered voters.
This isn’t the 1st drone that’s been shot down, and I doubt that it will be the last.
“Almost definitely” does not mean that a drone camera is not shooting/recording directly below it.
“Usually have” does not mean that drone cameras always have wide-angle lenses.
Even if you have a very large property, you could still have a very large flying bowling ball hovering over your head, courtesy of some drone flyer who doesn’t care if the voting public expects privacy in their own back yards.
Let the voting, laws, and regulation of future drone flights be fought in every city, town, county, parish, and state. May the majority win.
madsircool – Well, that’s not what the law says. The law says that drone owners have to:
intentionally harass a child
a child meaning someone under 16 years of age
the harassment must be to the point that it seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child
the harassment must serve no legitimate purpose
the harassment of the child is because of the parent’s employment
the harassment must be expected to cause torment of any reasonable child (i.e., it isn’t sufficient for some fragile flower to be seriously alarmed)
To be guilty of this crime, all elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to prove any element to that degree must result in a not guilty verdict. Considering that from the articles I have read, the daughter is 16, there’s conflicting evidence of the altitude of the drone, there’s no evidence that the drone took even one picture of the daughter, there’s no evidence that the daughter was targeted because of her father’s employment, there is evidence that the drone owner was asked to survey a different neighbor’s house, and it is hard to determine whether a reasonable child would have been terrified, seriously alarmed, or tormented by the drone, I don’t think even one element of the crime can be proven.
If the daughter suffered some emotional distress, I’m sure her family could file a lawsuit against the drone owners. I very much doubt they would succeed, but whatever. But whether they want to file a lawsuit or not, it’s pretty clear the drone owners would have no criminal culpability in this case, were the California law to apply.
Considering the FAA has Federal jurisdiction over the use of aircraft, I don’t find it likely that every town will get to create their own laws on the use of drones, in the same way that every down doesn’t get to develop its own policy on immigration.
Yeah, there is no getting around #2; I question the legality of #5; but the rest is a crapshoot. Although the law says beyond a reasonable doubt its really about what the jury believes. Skeevy drone guy isnt going to get much sympathy from a jury.
Some apparently have forgotten about the right to privacy.
The lesson to learn here is to make the drone disappear away from the prying eyes of witnesses and keep your mouth shut. [channeling Robert DeNiro in Goodfellas]
The general police power of states and localities, which can be used to regulate how cars are operated on roads and freeways, does not extend to aircraft. Your town does not get to trump the FAA on its regulations – what the FAA says, goes.
