DannyDuberstein said:

---

You guys seem to be struggling to understand that legal doesn't mean it is right

---

And you seem to struggle to realize "right" is purely subjective.

Some people think it's "right" to chop a child's genitalia off.

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Cant shoot them down because that is destroying government property.

---

That's ridiculous. If they're from Mexico and they're in the United States I don't see why they can't

Not even privacy. Just trespassing.

In general, you shouldn't be able to cross my property line without my consent.

The law as written today doesn't disallow it, as it only speaks to taking photos/video without consent and includes intent.

That doesn't mean it won't change.

I just struggle to understand why people think it's okay to fly a drone over private property without permission. Can you answer that?

I honestly don't think that's a terrible idea. Either get permission or edit the photos to blur or obscure properties not related to the subject propertt

annie88 said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Cant shoot them down because that is destroying government property.

---

That's ridiculous. If they're from Mexico and they're in the United States I don't see why they can't

---

It's a tongue in cheek statement bc the Mexican cartels are bought & paid for by the United States government

annie88 said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Cant shoot them down because that is destroying government property.

---

That's ridiculous. If they're from Mexico and they're in the United States I don't see why they can't

---

The cia is in bed with the cartels. He was making a joke.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Not even privacy. Just trespassing.

In general, you shouldn't be able to cross my property line without my consent.

The law as written today doesn't disallow it, as it only speaks to taking photos/video without consent and includes intent.

That doesn't mean it won't change.

I just struggle to understand why people think it's okay to fly a drone over private property without permission. Can you answer that?

---

Yes it's very easy to answer. The public has access to airspace.


Theres a big difference between a drone hovering 10-20 ft above your house peeking in a window (which rarely happens I guarantee you that) vs a drone flying at 100-400 feet.

Personally - if you see a drone flying at window level around your house and you were to shoot it I have no problem with it and would do the same. But you also have to be realistic and objective when discussing this.

Saying you believe there should be an impenetrable wall from ground level to space is just laughable.

Kraft Punk said:

---

annie88 said:

---

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Cant shoot them down because that is destroying government property.

---

That's ridiculous. If they're from Mexico and they're in the United States I don't see why they can't

---

It's a tongue in cheek statement bc the Mexican cartels are bought & paid for by the United States government

---

oh sorry that was a whoosh for me

I'm not saying that, in any sense.

But, maybe from the ground to 400ft, or wherever navigable air space was traditionally considered, before drones became a thing. Maybe that reasonable answer is 50 ft or 100ft.

V8Aggie said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

You guys seem to be struggling to understand that legal doesn't mean it is right

---

And you seem to struggle to realize "right" is purely subjective.

Some people think it's "right" to chop a child's genitalia off.

---

LOL at this ridiculous equivalency. Some of us are simply able to respect other's private property and privacy using common sense and common courtesy.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

You guys seem to be struggling to understand that legal doesn't mean it is right

---

And you seem to struggle to realize "right" is purely subjective.

Some people think it's "right" to chop a child's genitalia off.

---

LOL at this ridiculous equivalency. Some of us are simply able to respect other's private property and privacy using common sense and common courtesy.

---

Maybe that's the problem. You're talking about courtesy, but others are talking about legality. Some are also arguing that discourteous actions should be met with illegal actions.

Amd some are trying to equate drones with planes and helicopters.

There's little recourse if a property owner is having issues with drones that's not taking photos of the property with the intent to conduct surveillance

People are just trying to understand what the proposed legal limits would be and how they should be defined.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

You guys seem to be struggling to understand that legal doesn't mean it is right

---

And you seem to struggle to realize "right" is purely subjective.

Some people think it's "right" to chop a child's genitalia off.

---

LOL at this ridiculous equivalency. Some of us are simply able to respect other's private property and privacy using common sense and common courtesy.

---

You just proved my point again. Common sense and respect can mean completely different things depending on who you ask.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Amd some are trying to equate drones with planes and helicopters.

There's little recourse if a property owner is having issues with drones that's not taking photos of the property with the intent to conduct surveillance

---

There absolutely is recourse depending on the situation. You being annoyed that someone is flying a drone across your property at 100 ft is likely never going to be met with the level of recourse you probably expect or want.

The funny thing (that kind of sucks) is if we were all together around a campfire with some beer we'd likely be able to clearly illustrate both perspectives and come to a mutual understanding of tolerance from both sides.

I typically avoid these long discussions on forums but I guess I'm bored and it's not politics atm. So that's refreshing at least (yes I understand I'm on F16)

Who?mikejones! said:

---

No, a drone. Drones are not helicopters or planes, though I'm sure there's an altitude a helicopter can't randomly fly over ones house at.

There's established rules for aviation. Drones are in a gray area.

I'm not sure why this is so complicated or why you want to so eagerly fly a drone over someone's house.

There's already established laws and regulations for aircraft and what altitudes they must maintain, etc.

---

Actually, as long as they're operating safely, not really...

I agree that there needs to be some regulations/legislation on drones flying over properties. But, it's more complicated than it seems.

If I fly a drone directly over my house at 50 feet, I can likely see my neighbor's backyard from the camera. But, I'm not over my neighbor's house. So, I'm not trespassing. At 400 feet, I could probably take pictures of most of the backyards in my entire neighborhood. Again, I'm only directly above my own house, so I'm not trespassing.

As an example, here's a pic taken from 400 feet AGL.

I think we started that way earlier.

How about you can't fly a drone lower than the tallest tree or 50ft, whichever is higher, over another's property

For what it's worth, the drone community tars and feathers folks that do something with drones that makes it more difficult for the public to be comfortable around them.

They typically are concerned with your privacy.

Most of the time it's children with cheap Amazon drones that have potato cameras that are the issue.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I think we started that way earlier.

How about you can't fly a drone lower than the tallest tree or 50ft, whichever is higher, over another's property

---

That seems more than reasonable for an urban area. Even 100 ft for rural.