Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?

The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.

Difference is, they never loodked at the video. Read the article I put up. He (and witnesses) watched them just give the drone back without even removing the SD card. If he was claiming voyeurism as the reason he shot it, they should keep the card for evidence. But they didn't, and he went to jail. Thats pretty one sided, and boneheaded on the LEO's part

Someone punches you and gets arrested, the guy that punches you says you were recording him with your phone, the officer doesn't charge you but takes your phone away from you anyway.

If there is no law against flying a camera drone around and the police have no probable cause to take your drone away from you then it doesn't matter if the guy didn't like it and he wants to use it in his "I shot the drone, but he was looking at me funny".

It's not illegal to fly your drone in public (which also includes the airspace above your house), the law is fairly clear on that.

It's also not illegal to take pictures in public, the law is very clear on that.

One guy shooting off his shotgun says "they were spying on me", guy with the drone says "we were hired to take pictures of the neighbors house", there is nothing there to justify the search and seizure of the drone.

 d-usa wrote:
Someone punches you and gets arrested, the guy that punches you says you were recording him with your phone, the officer doesn't charge you but takes your phone away from you anyway.

If there is no law against flying a camera drone around and the police have no probable cause to take your drone away from you then it doesn't matter if the guy didn't like it and he wants to use it in his "I shot the drone, but he was looking at me funny".

It's not illegal to fly your drone in public (which also includes the airspace above your house), the law is fairly clear on that.

It's also not illegal to take pictures in public, the law is very clear on that.

One guy shooting off his shotgun says "they were spying on me", guy with the drone says "we were hired to take pictures of the neighbors house", there is nothing there to justify the search and seizure of the drone.

The neighbours house is private property, do they have the right to take pictures of it without the owners permission?

Does that right extend to taking pictures of underage girls on that private property without their permission?

I think the man saying "I suspected they were taking pictures of my underage teenage daughter sunbathing in our garden" warrants looking at the SD card, as it could lead to charges of voyeurism and possibly worse since she was a minor.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Someone punches you and gets arrested, the guy that punches you says you were recording him with your phone, the officer doesn't charge you but takes your phone away from you anyway.

If there is no law against flying a camera drone around and the police have no probable cause to take your drone away from you then it doesn't matter if the guy didn't like it and he wants to use it in his "I shot the drone, but he was looking at me funny".

It's not illegal to fly your drone in public (which also includes the airspace above your house), the law is fairly clear on that.

It's also not illegal to take pictures in public, the law is very clear on that.

One guy shooting off his shotgun says "they were spying on me", guy with the drone says "we were hired to take pictures of the neighbors house", there is nothing there to justify the search and seizure of the drone.

The neighbours house is private property, do they have the right to take pictures of it without the owners permission?

Yes. Anyone can take picture of anything as long as it is in public. That includes all parts of your private property that is visible from a public area. I can stand in front of your house on a public road and take all the pictures I want. This is a big difference between the US and European countries, and you can look at the various issues that Google Street View has run into to learn more about that. If I am flying in a helicopter, airplane, or hot air ballon I am still allowed to take pictures of your property because I'm in the air which is public.

Drones is where people are starting to re-evaluate these laws and are now thinking about how high/low private property extends. But it is likely that the cops know the law in their own jurisdiction better than us Internet guys and that heh would know if flying that drone with a camera was against the law.

I'm not saying it is right to use a drone and the technicality of being "in public" to video sunbathing teenagers (if that is what they were doing), im just saying it was most likely legal.

Does that right extend to taking pictures of underage girls on that private property without their permission?

Yes. I am legally able to walk through my entire neighborhood and take pictures of every child I see as long as I can see them without having to enter their property.

I think the man saying "I suspected they were taking pictures of my underage teenage daughter sunbathing in our garden" warrants looking at the SD card, as it could lead to charges of voyeurism and possibly worse since she was a minor.

If your daughter was sunbathing and I was able to see her without violating the law, then I would be able to record her without breaking the law. You might not like it, and you might call the cops, but once the cops determine that no law was broken they have no right to search my recordings or to keep my recording device.

The cops don't get to look at the video to see if a crime occurred or keep the memory card to see if a crime occured. They need to have probable cause that a law was violated to justify seizing and searching the drone. Saying "he spied on us" in the absence of any actual evidence, especially if flying a drone and recording with it isn't against the law, does not meet that burden.

I realize that recording (pictures/video) and privacy laws are very different in the US and Europe, so I suspect that this is part of the reason we disagree on the legality of it. But please don't mistake my position on legality as a moral approval to record underage sunbathers to get your jollies.

The US Voyeurism law is:

Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(b) In this section—
(1) the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast;
(2) the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;
(3) the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;
(4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and
(5) the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means—
(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or
(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.

Now lets look at this.

They were taking pictures/recording so that satisfies part 1

The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments". So this satisfies part 3.

The garden is private property. It had a 6 foot fence. So I think it could be argued to satisfy 5 A and/or B.

So I actually do think there is a possible case for the drone owners to be prosecuted under voyeurism if they did have pictures of the sunbathing girl.

If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".

lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency

Ouze wrote:
If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".

lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency

So could you explain the difference between a bikini top and a bra?

Because I've seen some bikini tops that cover less area than a bra does.

Also, I don't think just walking around in your undergarments is actually a case of public indecency.

Also, this was his back yard. With a tall fence. That is not "standing in clear public view"

Ouze wrote:
If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".

lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency

The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?

The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.

Except the police didn't bother to search the card, which is where the evidence would be. Using your example, if the police show up and you say you punched a guy in the face because he had someone locked, unconscious, in the trunk of his car, and they arrest you because there is evidence you punched him. They, however, let the guy go without making any effort of searching the car, because the victim locked in the trunk can't be seen.
That is crappy police work.

Relapse wrote:
The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.

Except that isn't a clear fact, but hotly in dispute. The guy who operated the drone claimed he was at 300 feet, and produced a flight log on an ipad - which can't be faked that I'm aware of - as evidence to support his story. On the other hand, we have the word of a guy who is charged with 2 felonies over his actions and who has every reason to lie about what happened to bolster his defense. So, not sure why he's getting this enormous presumption of honesty.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So could you explain the difference between a bikini top and a bra?

Because I've seen some bikini tops that cover less area than a bra does.

No, because this is a ridiculous argument that's not worth my time - that being in a bathing suit is the same as undergarments. You can feel free to google the definition yourself, but you need to consider that you're literally arguing everyone at a beach is in their underwear and anyone videotaping, at a beach, could be prosecuted for voyeurism. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on Dakka and the bar was already quite low.

So the drone was hovering below the neighbors tarp, with a report that he was hired to take picture of the neighbor house (so he wasn't even "trespassing" on the shooters property under any stretch of definition), and no expectation of privacy from anything that has a vantage point higher than 6 feet.

The legal justification for the shooting is getting worse and worse, and the legal case against the drone operator is getting more nonexistent with every "fact".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Ouze wrote:
If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".

lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency

The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?

The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.

Except the police didn't bother to search the card, which is where the evidence would be. Using your example, if the police show up and you say you punched a guy in the face because he had someone locked, unconscious, in the trunk of his car, and they arrest you because there is evidence you punched him. They, however, let the guy go without making any effort of searching the car, because the victim locked in the trunk can't be seen.
That is crappy police work.

"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.

Relapse wrote:

Ouze wrote:
If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".

lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency

The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.

Hmmm something about this post stands out........what one word could explain why someone would shoot down a flying drone with a camera attached....oh, yeah, " privacy".

People have a reasonable expectation of privacy when enjoying their own property as lomg as appropriate measures have been taken to seclude themselves from casual observation. It's sad that some chuckleheads refuse to recognize and honor their wishes. Had the girl been in the front yard, in full public view, I would be less sympathetic but as the daughter and homeowner took appropriate steps to ensure privacy, I can't find fault with his reaction.

 d-usa wrote:

"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.

I would think that it's enough to at the very least, ask some questions. Most Americans are fairly reasonable people, they don't do stuff without some sort of provocation (from their point of view). When the cops ask the guy why he was shooting at drones, and he says, "I suspected they were filming my daughter" they should turn to the drone operator, and say something like, "will your video show that you were filming anything you weren't supposed to, such as underage girls?" they could even ask permission to view the footage, without actually confiscating it as well.

This way, when it goes to court they can say, "Your honor, we asked the drone operator if we could view the footage he had taken, it was 10 minutes long, and showed [no/a ton of] footage of underage girls sunbathing"

Ouze wrote:

No, because this is a ridiculous argument that's not worth my time - that being in a bathing suit is the same as undergarments. You can feel free to google the definition yourself, but you need to consider that you're literally arguing everyone at a beach is in their underwear and anyone videotaping, at a beach, could be prosecuted for voyeurism. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on Dakka and the bar was already quite low.

I suggest you re-read the definition of voyeurism in law, as I put earlier. People couldn't be prosecuted at a beach as it is not an area where people could expect privacy.

So the argument you think you saw is bad because you didn't read the whole post or understand the law.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.

I would think that it's enough to at the very least, ask some questions. Most Americans are fairly reasonable people, they don't do stuff without some sort of provocation (from their point of view). When the cops ask the guy why he was shooting at drones, and he says, "I suspected they were filming my daughter" they should turn to the drone operator, and say something like, "will your video show that you were filming anything you weren't supposed to, such as underage girls?" they could even ask permission to view the footage, without actually confiscating it as well.

This way, when it goes to court they can say, "Your honor, we asked the drone operator if we could view the footage he had taken, it was 10 minutes long, and showed [no/a ton of] footage of underage girls sunbathing"

Or he showed his log, shows that he was over the neighbors property, has permission to fly there, in addition to having a legal right to photograph and film in public anyway, and there was no evidence that a crime was committed.

They could ask of course, but not looking at it doesn't make it crappy police work as is being claimed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Ouze wrote:

No, because this is a ridiculous argument that's not worth my time - that being in a bathing suit is the same as undergarments. You can feel free to google the definition yourself, but you need to consider that you're literally arguing everyone at a beach is in their underwear and anyone videotaping, at a beach, could be prosecuted for voyeurism. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on Dakka and the bar was already quite low.

I suggest you re-read the definition of voyeurism in law, as I put earlier. People couldn't be prosecuted at a beach as it is not an area where people could expect privacy.

So the argument you think you saw is bad because you didn't read the whole post or understand the law.

And you don't have an expectation of privacy on your own property if it is visible from an area that is "public", which at this time includes the airspace. Hence Google Street View and Google Earth.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Ouze wrote:

No, because this is a ridiculous argument that's not worth my time - that being in a bathing suit is the same as undergarments. You can feel free to google the definition yourself, but you need to consider that you're literally arguing everyone at a beach is in their underwear and anyone videotaping, at a beach, could be prosecuted for voyeurism. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on Dakka and the bar was already quite low.

I suggest you re-read the definition of voyeurism in law, as I put earlier. People couldn't be prosecuted at a beach as it is not an area where people could expect privacy.

So the argument you think you saw is bad because you didn't read the whole post or understand the law.

I'm speaking specifically to your ludicrous equivocation of bathing attire to undergarments.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments". So this satisfies part 3.

Don't shift the goalposts.

 d-usa wrote:
And you don't have an expectation of privacy on your own property if it is visible from an area that is "public", which at this time includes the airspace. Hence Google Street View and Google Earth.

Wait, are you saying I can't shoot at news helicopters?

crazytown

Edit: also, the federal law doesn't apply here because the backyard is not federal property.

Kentucky law: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=43301

 d-usa wrote:
So the drone was hovering below the neighbors tarp, with a report that he was hired to take picture of the neighbor house (so he wasn't even "trespassing" on the shooters property under any stretch of definition), and no expectation of privacy from anything that has a vantage point higher than 6 feet.

The legal justification for the shooting is getting worse and worse, and the legal case against the drone operator is getting more nonexistent with every "fact".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Ouze wrote:
If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".

lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency

The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?

The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.

Except the police didn't bother to search the card, which is where the evidence would be. Using your example, if the police show up and you say you punched a guy in the face because he had someone locked, unconscious, in the trunk of his car, and they arrest you because there is evidence you punched him. They, however, let the guy go without making any effort of searching the car, because the victim locked in the trunk can't be seen.
That is crappy police work.

"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.

Let's explore a couple of points, starting with a local report of the story:

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

No report says that the neighbor's house being looked into was the operator's friend. There are, however other neighbors talking about the drone hovering over their property in the same fashion as the shooter's. Number 8 shot would be hard pressed to bring down a mosquito, let alone something far more robust at the range the drone operator claimed they were flying the drone at.
As far as "some random guy" goes, it was a man claiming a family member was being victimized, and he recieved not even the courtesy, it seems, of a cursory check on his story, especially, as the story seems to say, it was backed by at least one other neighbor.

And video recording: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=20014

In case anyone was wondering, this is what 300 feet up looks like:



So a person at that height is essentially an ant 5 pixels high.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So the drone was hovering below the neighbors tarp, with a report that he was hired to take picture of the neighbor house (so he wasn't even "trespassing" on the shooters property under any stretch of definition), and no expectation of privacy from anything that has a vantage point higher than 6 feet.

The legal justification for the shooting is getting worse and worse, and the legal case against the drone operator is getting more nonexistent with every "fact".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Ouze wrote:
If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".

lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency

The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?

The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.

Except the police didn't bother to search the card, which is where the evidence would be. Using your example, if the police show up and you say you punched a guy in the face because he had someone locked, unconscious, in the trunk of his car, and they arrest you because there is evidence you punched him. They, however, let the guy go without making any effort of searching the car, because the victim locked in the trunk can't be seen.
That is crappy police work.

"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.

Let's explore a couple of points, starting with a local report of the story:

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

No report says that the neighbor's house being looked into was the operator's friend. There are, however other neighbors talking about the drone hovering over their property in the same fashion as the shooter's. Number 8 shot would be hard pressed to bring down a mosquito, let alone something far more robust at the range the drone operator claimed they were flying the drone at.
As far as "some random guy" goes, it was a man claiming a family member was being victimized, and he recieved not even the courtesy, it seems, of a cursory check on his story, especially, as the story seems to say, it was backed by at least one other neighbor.

Let's try it this way, since explaining over and over again how no law was broken isn't working:

You guys show which law was broken, what actual evidence backs that up, and how that justifies the search and seizure of the drone without a warrant.

Ouse, News helicopters don't randomly hoveri just a few feet over your property taking pictures of underage girls and spy on random neighbors.

Relapse wrote:
Ouse, News helicopters don't randomly hoveri just a few feet over your property taking pictures of underage girls and spy on random neighbors.

If they did, would you be legally justified in taking a few potshots at them?

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So the drone was hovering below the neighbors tarp, with a report that he was hired to take picture of the neighbor house (so he wasn't even "trespassing" on the shooters property under any stretch of definition), and no expectation of privacy from anything that has a vantage point higher than 6 feet.

The legal justification for the shooting is getting worse and worse, and the legal case against the drone operator is getting more nonexistent with every "fact".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Ouze wrote:
If you're standing out in your yard, in clear public view, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments".

lol no. We're not going to arrest every person at a beach for charges of public indecency

The thing being ignored is that they weren't in public view, but in their back yard surrounded by a privacy fence. It is also being ignored that the drone was hovering below a tarp on the neighbor's house, presumably looking inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So if someone punches you in the face and says they punched you because you took pictures of his family in your car, and the police show up and search you car and don't find any evidence, do they then get to keep your car for however long it takes for the other guy to go to court?

The police investigated both complaints, they found evidence for one of them, that's pretty much it.

Except the police didn't bother to search the card, which is where the evidence would be. Using your example, if the police show up and you say you punched a guy in the face because he had someone locked, unconscious, in the trunk of his car, and they arrest you because there is evidence you punched him. They, however, let the guy go without making any effort of searching the car, because the victim locked in the trunk can't be seen.
That is crappy police work.

"Some random guy said do" is pretty laughable basis for a search and seizure. And it's pretty amazing that you are arguing that "someone said something" is now enough cause to seize property when you continue to argue that decades of court rulings is not enough to take a cow.

Let's explore a couple of points, starting with a local report of the story:

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

No report says that the neighbor's house being looked into was the operator's friend. There are, however other neighbors talking about the drone hovering over their property in the same fashion as the shooter's. Number 8 shot would be hard pressed to bring down a mosquito, let alone something far more robust at the range the drone operator claimed they were flying the drone at.
As far as "some random guy" goes, it was a man claiming a family member was being victimized, and he recieved not even the courtesy, it seems, of a cursory check on his story, especially, as the story seems to say, it was backed by at least one other neighbor.

Let's try it this way, since explaining over and over again how no law was broken isn't working:

You guys show which law was broken, what actual evidence backs that up, and how that justifies the search and seizure of the drone without a warrant.

No point, since you don't understand a father defending his daughter.

Oh, what the hell, here you go:

http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm


From the start in the link:

"1. What is Privacy?

Privacy is the expectation that confidential personal information disclosed in a private place will not be disclosed to third parties, when that disclosure would cause either embarrassment or emotional distress to a person of reasonable sensitivities. Information is interpreted broadly to include facts, images (e.g., photographs, videotapes), and disparaging opinions.

The right of privacy is restricted to individuals who are in a place that a person would reasonably expect to be private (e.g., home, hotel room, telephone booth). There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. People should be protected by privacy when they "believe that the conversation is private and can not be heard by others who are acting in an lawful manner." Am.Jur.2d Telecommunications § 209 (1974)."

Feel free to quote the statue where "im defending my girls honor" places you above the law when you make the legal case for a violation of the law by the drone Operator.

Again, like I said many times. I'm not saying the operator was right, I'm saying it was not illegal.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I also have a two year old girl, so you can shut up with that stupid argument or land on the ignore list. It only makes you look like a sore loser.

 d-usa wrote:
Feel free to quote the statue where "im defending my girls honor" places you above the law when you make the legal case for a violation of the law by the drone Operator.

Again, like I said many times. I'm not saying the operator was right, I'm saying it was not illegal.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I also have a two year old girl, so you can shut up with that stupid argument or land on the ignore list. It only makes you look like a sore loser.

is this another rage quit vowing never to be seen again, coming on? BTW, before you storm off, it appears there are laws against it, if you bother to read my link.

Relapse wrote:
it appears there are laws against it, if you bother to read my link.

Which one? That site you linked has dozens of unrelated laws listed.

Relapse wrote:
The right of privacy is restricted to individuals who are in a place that a person would reasonably expect to be private (e.g., home, hotel room, telephone booth). There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. People should be protected by privacy when they "believe that the conversation is private and can not be heard by others who are acting in an lawful manner." Am.Jur.2d Telecommunications § 209 (1974)."

They are talking about wiretapping, though - and even then, standing outside in your yard wouldn't give you a reasonable expectation of privacy if you can be overheard without intruding onto said private property.

Also, that cite is not a law, it's a reference to a legal textbook - I don't know what specific section it references, it's improperly cited. Since it was published in 1974, it may be out of date post-Patriot Act.

No, it's pointing out that "you don't know what it's like" is a stupid argument, made even stupider considering that I do know what's like, and a promise that if you continue to make stupid arguments I will ignore you.

You also have yet to show what law the drone owner was violating. "You are charged with 'I have a right to privacy' doesn't really work there".

But hey, feel free to continue with the "I have rights" and "you don't know what it's like" arguments, it does a good job showing your lack of understanding and demonstates the "what facts, just look at all these emotions" mindset that usually happens in cases like this.

Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The right of privacy is restricted to individuals who are in a place that a person would reasonably expect to be private (e.g., home, hotel room, telephone booth). There is no protection for information that either is a matter of public record or the victim voluntarily disclosed in a public place. People should be protected by privacy when they "believe that the conversation is private and can not be heard by others who are acting in an lawful manner." Am.Jur.2d Telecommunications § 209 (1974)."

They are talking about wiretapping, though - and even then, standing outside in your yard wouldn't give you a reasonable expectation of privacy if you can be overheard without intruding onto said private property.

Also, that cite is not a law, it's a reference to a legal textbook - I don't know what specific section it references, it's improperly cited. Since it was published in 1974, it may be out of date post-Patriot Act.

n

You are totally ignoring the part where they talk about cameras.

More from the same link:

"3. Modern Privacy Law

Because privacy is an emerging right, a discussion of privacy is typically a list of examples where the right has been recognized, instead of a simple definition. Privacy can be discussed in two different directions: the nature of the right and the source of the right (e.g., case law, statute, Constitution).

Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights:

unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc."

Note that again, they speak of cameras.

This isn't a law, though. This is someone giving their opinion and offering general guidance - classes of laws.

We're asking "what specific laws" and you're offering "there are some laws", is what I'm trying to say.

Ouze wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Ouze wrote:

No, because this is a ridiculous argument that's not worth my time - that being in a bathing suit is the same as undergarments. You can feel free to google the definition yourself, but you need to consider that you're literally arguing everyone at a beach is in their underwear and anyone videotaping, at a beach, could be prosecuted for voyeurism. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever read on Dakka and the bar was already quite low.

I suggest you re-read the definition of voyeurism in law, as I put earlier. People couldn't be prosecuted at a beach as it is not an area where people could expect privacy.

So the argument you think you saw is bad because you didn't read the whole post or understand the law.

I'm speaking specifically to your ludicrous equivocation of bathing attire to undergarments.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The girl was sunbathing. It therefore follows that she was probably wearing a bikini, an outfit which could, I think, be argued to be the same as "undergarments". So this satisfies part 3.

Don't shift the goalposts.

I didn't shift the goalposts, you did. My entire post was in regards to the law in which I think a reasonable argument could be made that, in certain circumstances, a bikini top and bottoms are functionally the same as pants and bra.

Such as in a situation where the wearer expects privacy. If a woman is wearing a bikini top and bottoms under a t-shirt and skirt and someone takes a picture up her skirt, does the fact that the bikini is not sold as undergarments alter the fact that it was being used as such? Are pants and a bra only considered undergarments if they are currently being worn under clothes? If the girl was sunbathing in her back garden in pants and bra, which covered the exact same amount of flesh as a bikini, would it be okay to photograph her without her permission or not? If not, then why would it be okay if she were in a bikini when the end picture is the same?

By your argument you could argue that as a bikini is not "undergarments" then it is not an act of voyeurism to take a photo up a girls skirt as long as she's wearing bikini briefs. That is obviously absurd. The context of the situation is very important in these kinds of situations.

Hence why there is a huge difference between sunbathing in your fenced back yard where it is not unreasonable to assume you will not get photographed by random strangers and on a beach where it is unreasonable to assume that you will not end up in photos, though a stranger deliberately taking one of you is still very creepy and weird.