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:
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.

Rage quit again, then, if it makes you feel better. On second thought, don't. I'd miss ya!

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
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.

Rage quit again, then, if it makes you feel better.

Are you to post a law that was violate and explain how it justifies a search and seizure?

Or are you going to continue with the "emotions" justification despite the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out that flying a drone to record underage sunbathers is a scumbag thing to do even if it isn't illegal?

It appears what was done could be considered a tort:

http://www.artsandbusinessphila.org/pvla/documents/PrivacyPhotography.pdf


From the link:

"Photographing someone is an intrusion only if it encroaches on someone’s private space, whether through unwanted close physical contact or through photographing someone in their home from a distance. However, photographing someone from a distance in a public place is not considered an intrusion.
The tort of intrusion is complete when the intrusion occurs. The photograph need not be made public or even developed. The act of taking the photograph is enough to constitute intrusion."

This family was in a private place, surrounded by a 6' fence in their back yard.

If the drone really was flying low over his property, as in below his roof line - which has not been ascertained - I think they could have pushed for charges of harassment, or trespassing.

Going back to the original case, though, in no version of posted events was he legally clear to destroy the drone with a firearm.

Ouze wrote:
If the drone really was flying low over his property, as in below his roof line - which has not been ascertained - I think they could have pushed for charges of harassment, or trespassing.

Going back to the original case, though, in no version of posted events was he legally clear to destroy the drone with a firearm.

I agree with you on that. I wouldn't have shot the thing, but the police were in the wrong in not checking the camera.

The police need to have evidence of a crime to check the camera. Hence the request for anyone claiming "the police screwed up" to show which crime was committed by the drone operator to justify the search of the drone.

If the guy doing the shooting wants to use it as a defense he is more than welcome to file for discovery in court.

 d-usa wrote:
The police need to have evidence of a crime to check the camera.

"We can't check for evidence because there is no evidence that a crime occurred."

This is circular logic I more expect to see from the Police Brutality Defense League.

So until they invent cameras that leave physical marks on the subject, we can't persecute people who record child porn, by your standards. Heck, they couldn't check a dead body and a smoking gun if someone pointed them out, because there would be no evidence of a crime that would justify checking that evidence...

Don't know if this got posted yet, but certainly opens up the story more.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29675427/drone-owner-responds-to-claims-of-privacy-invasion

So it looks like the SD card for the video is missing, the owner claims it was missing when he got back the drone, shooter says he has no idea. Looks like the owner does have flight path data which appears to show it at ~200+ feet before tumbling to the ground, owner had only had it like two days, shooter says he doesn't know how long it had been hovering there but "long enough to get three shots off" (after of course running to get his weapon).

That certainly looks less solid for the shooter. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Either way, looks like the dude is almost certainly going to face a conviction for discharging a firearm in a residential area.

 d-usa wrote:
The police need to have evidence of a crime to check the camera. Hence the request for anyone claiming "the police screwed up" to show which crime was committed by the drone operator to justify the search of the drone.

If the guy doing the shooting wants to use it as a defense he is more than welcome to file for discovery in court.

Police giving potential evidence back to be destroyed is a huge screw up, and I know you aren't naive enough to think that evidence in the hands of the accused wouldn't be destroyed. Bear in mind the shooter wasn't the only one saying the drone was hovering. Another neighbor said the same thing about it hovering over her property.


Kentucky law on the subject:

"531.090 Voyeurism.
(1) A person is guilty of voyeurism when:
(a) He or she intentionally:
1. Uses or causes the use of any camera, videotape, photooptical, photoelectric, or other image recording device for the purpose of observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without that person's consent; or
2. Uses the unaided eye or any device designed to improve visual acuity for the purpose of observing or viewing the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without that person's consent; or
3. Enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another for the purpose of observing or viewing the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without the person's consent; and
(b) The other person is in a place where a reasonable person would believe that his or her sexual conduct, genitals, undergarments, or nipple of the female breast will not be observed, viewed, photographed, filmed, or videotaped without his or her knowledge.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to:
(a) A law enforcement officer during a lawful criminal investigation; or
(b) An employee of the Department of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile Justice, a private prison, a local jail, or a local correctional facility whose actions have been authorized for security or investigative purposes.
(3) Unless objected to by the victim or victims of voyeurism, the court on its own motion or on motion of the Commonwealth's attorney shall:
(a) Order the sealing of all photographs, film, videotapes, or other images that are introduced into evidence during a prosecution under this section or are in the possession of law enforcement, the prosecution, or the court as the result of a prosecution under this section; and
(b) At the conclusion of a prosecution under this section, unless required for additional prosecutions, order the destruction of all of the photographs, film, videotapes, or other images that are in possession of law enforcement, the prosecution, or the court.
(4) Voyeurism is a Class A misdemeanor."

If hovering your drone is not illegal, then it is not evidence that a crime has occured.

And you know what state and city this happened in, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find the law that makes hovering your drone illegal if it was.

 d-usa wrote:
If hovering your drone is not illegal, then it is not evidence that a crime has occured.

And you know what state and city this happened in, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find the law that makes hovering your drone illegal if it was.

No more point in talking to you about this, since it's not getting thought to you even though I posted laws about invasion of privacy in Kentucky.
I will agree it was reckless shooting the gun, but the operators were potentially in the wrong, also. We'll never know, however, because the police didn't bother to check the drone.

If you posted a link about privacy in Kentucky I didn't see it. I only noticed the post about nebulous privacy rights in general.

And again, your existence of a right doesn't make that violation by another a crime. Cops don't get to take away my phone to search it because you have a right to privacy, they get to search it because violated a specific law that protects that right.

So {citation needed} or quit, I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I see the edit now, so let me read and get back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit 2: so you posted the law I posted a page or two ago, congratulations.

The back yard has no expectation of privacy from the air, as already extensively explained. The teenagers were not in their underwear (unless you want to argue that it's a bathing suit when you want people to look at you and magically turns into underwear when you don't, but I am unaware of a legal concept of Scheödinger's Garments), they were not having sex, they did not expose their genitals. And the drone hovering was not "unlawful".

These were all already explained of course, but there you go.

Privacy laws state that people in a private place, in this case, a back yard with a 6 foot fence, have a reasonable expectation of privacy and to photograph or capture an image is an action that is subject to prosecution.

One last time in this circular conversation, the cops dropped the ball in not checking the for the card on the drone.

The same privacy laws that say a cop can't climp up and look into your backyard without a warrant, but they can fly over it and look with their helicopter?

And again: your rights =/= laws prohibiting me from doing something. Me telling you to shut up is not me breaking the law because you have a right to free speech. Me driving down the street and seeing you through your window is not me breaking the law because you have a right to privacy.

Talking about your rights when trying to make a case that a law was broken is nonsensical.

Tsss. The question isn't 'Is it wrong of them to drive their drone over my property?'

The question is 'SAMs or shells?'

SAM's wouldn't arm or track properly against most Drones. My preferred anti-drone weapon would be one of those dual MG-3/MG-42 AA mounts.

They seem to do pretty good anti-drone work here

 d-usa wrote:
Me driving down the street and seeing you through your window is not me breaking the law because you have a right to privacy.

Correct, however, in most places, you driving down the street taking pictures of me through my window WOULD be considered breaking the law.

The drone operator never got the SD card? I declare shenanigans. The shooter has a 6 foot privacy fence, and the drone landed in a neighbors yard. Shooter never left his property, and the police were the ones that gave the drone back. Where could it have gone?

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
The drone operator never got the SD card? I declare shenanigans. The shooter has a 6 foot privacy fence, and the drone landed in a neighbors yard. Shooter never left his property, and the police were the ones that gave the drone back. Where could it have gone?

It was stolen by the same guy who always steals your firearm the day before it is used to murder someone.

It seems to me that if your neighbour used a ladder or periscope to peer into your garden over the fence, he would be extremely rude and liable to have some social sanction delivered to him even if the situation was not illegal. I don't see why hovering a drone to view over the fence should be any different. It may well be that it is legal to hover drones, and illegal to discharge firearms within city limits, but the voyeuristic drone hoverers are going to learn the hard way that their kind of nosey parker behaviour violates social boundaries. Or maybe most people are fine with being drone observed by their neighbours. The situation is still developing, rather like the etiquette of using mobile phones in railway carriages.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me that if your neighbour used a ladder or periscope to peer into your garden over the fence, he would be extremely rude and liable to have some social sanction delivered to him even if the situation was not illegal. I don't see why hovering a drone to view over the fence should be any different. It may well be that it is legal to hover drones, and illegal to discharge firearms within city limits, but the voyeuristic drone hoverers are going to learn the hard way that their kind of nosey parker behaviour violates social boundaries. Or maybe most people are fine with being drone observed by their neighbours. The situation is still developing, rather like the etiquette of using mobile phones in railway carriages.

While that's all true, I'd say a person climbing a ladder to snap up pictures of an underage girl in revealing clothing (yes, we all love bikinis because they're almost the same as underwear and we get to see women almost fully naked) is grounds for action being taken. I'm not gonna say exactly what action SHOULD be taken, because I don't know what the right call is, but something should have been done. And if an accusation of possible underage pics are in question, the cops should have taken steps. It's not uncommon for girls to undo their straps to prevent tan lines. You think they're gonna remember to cover up if they're startled? Right. Could have easily become a case of child porn. And the cops just handed it back to them without issue? If that's true, that's very poor form. And anyone arguing that they were right to get the tapes back without the cops checking first are first class dirt bags. I don't care how good of a person you think you are. If you're in favor of them getting back the tapes before being checked, you're scum. Flat out.

*this is a general "you". Not an attack on KK.

An appeal to emotion != legal grounds for violating 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Unless the cops had actually been there, seen the drone hovering over the girls and obviously recording them(i.e.--the drone remaining in an orbit which could reasonably be considered to be strictly for angles on the girls rather than what the drone pilot has stated happened where he "flew over the backyard")--then it could be legally construed as an unreasonable search and seizure given the evidence at hand which at this point is a "he said, he said".

4th Amendment issue. Without a warrant the cops can't (and should not) be able to just take the storage mechanism and search it/view what is on it.

'Hey, they was filming my daughter' MAY be enough for a judge to issue a warrant, it may not be.

Don't get me wrong, someone filming my daughter won't like my reactions, but I fully understand why the cops did not confiscate the video . They were not called out there because of a voyeur, they were called out because a guy was firing a weapon in city limits and destroyed someone's property.

Ouze wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
In any regards, the operators supposedly were hired to take photographs of a neighbor's property.

The FAA is going to be on the operator for that.


Anyway, the drone operator has produced the flight tracking from the ipad he was running it from that showed it never was less than about 200 feet, and was at nearly 300 feet up when it was shot down.

If you shoot down a drone, you're going to be paying for the drone, you're looking at civil and possibly criminal charges, and you're going to be responsible for what happens when your bullet and the drone hit the ground.


Also, are we claiming now that people can't get hurt by falling bullets?

Well if that's the case then if say the home owner is going to be buying a new drone for someone. If that were me I'd have gone to the neighboring houses and let them know " hey I'm going to be flying a drone around taking pictures of the neighboring property, just an FYI.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
You think they're gonna remember to cover up if they're startled? Right.

In my experience that's the first reaction that most women have. As an example, my girlfriend and I vacationed in the South of France last summer. We went to a topless beach, and she spent the entire time with her breasts fully exposed. Despite that, when she was startled by a backfiring car her first reaction was to cover her breasts with her hands. I saw similar behavior all the time at pool parties on private property throughout high school and college, not to mention at public beaches.