"Kentucky man who was arrested after shooting down a drone in his backyard. William Merideth said that the vehicle was hovering over his teenage daughter, who was sunbathing. Whatever your views on private ownership of firearms (to say nothing of their discharge for this purpose), the case reminds us that the increasing private use of unmanned aircraft raises yet-unresolved questions about privacy." (Carter, 2015)
The question that is raised in this specific instance are twofold. I'm inclined to lean in favor of the gentleman who shot the drone down, I wouldn't be comfortable with someone hovering over my property and using their sUAS to be a remote peeping tom. However, this begs the question of what the current laws regarding an individuals rights to the airspace above their home, and how that applies to a drone operated by a hobbyist.
Currently, a 70 year old court ruling states that the " result of result of United States v. Causby was that the Court set the limits of private airspace: If you own a house, your property rights extend 83 feet up into the air." (Frank, 2016) The current confusion is due to the fact that the laws have not caught up to the technology, a problem that isn't specific to the sUAS issue. Technology just continues to advance faster than laws can be created to regulate it. Some individual laws that regulate invading another individuals property whether on the ground or in the air with the purpose of capturing images, video, or sound recordings without the individual's consent. These so called "paparazzi" laws are careful to mention the capturing of images, videos, or sound as the FAA has made it very clear that any regulations involving airspace and the operation of aircraft in that airspace are the sole purview of the Federal Aviation Administration. Currently, several groups are attempting to pressure the FAA into creating regulations that will help to protect an individual's privacy.
In our state, the laws do not specifically protect homeowners from unwanted drone spying, the only current laws regarding sUAS are specific to hunting. However, Michigan is trying to pass laws that regulate sUAS operations over private property.
"Currently in Michigan, the only laws passed regarding drones make it illegal to use the devices to assist with hunting, along with similar laws that forbid drone operators from harassing hunters.The issues dealing with private property and drone flight, are still being debated. In the State House, House Bill 4868 attempts to criminalize trespassing on or above private property with a drone, it has passed in the House, but has yet to reach a vote in the Senate." (Combs, 2016)
At the end of the day, there needs to be a balance achieved between homeowners and sUAS operators. The sUAS operators need to be cognizant of the perceived activities of their aircraft and avoid giving the impression that they are "spying" on individuals, and the homeowners need to realize that every drone that flies over their property isn't attempting to catch video of them while they're naked. For the few "bad seeds" that are using their sUAS to be high tech peeping toms, the affected party just needs to contact the police and report it rather than taking matters into their own hands. As the technology and laws develop, guidelines will become more defined and the blurred lines between right to privacy and the right to operate a sUAS should work themselves out.
References:
Carter, S. (2015, August 03). A battlefield of drones and privacy in your backyard. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-drones-privacy-laws-20150803-story.html
Frank, M. (2016, February 10). Drone Privacy: Is Anyone in Charge? Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://www.consumerreports.org/electronics/drone-privacy-is-anyone-in-charge/
Combs, C. (2016, February 29). As drones soar in Michigan, so do privacy concerns. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://wwmt.com/news/i-team/as-drones-soar-in-michigan-so-do-privacy-concerns
No comments:
Post a Comment