171
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 74 points 1 year ago

They claim that they use photos from satellites and fixed-wing aircraft, but refuse to show the photos to both the owner and the news outlet. I can almost 100% guarantee the company is lying about how they obtained the photos and won’t show them because it would prove they did use a drone. Admitting to using a drone would open up a can of legal issues for them that they want to avoid.

[-] 0110010001100010@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago

What legal issues would they be opening themselves up to? All airspace in the US is regulated by the FAA. As long as they weren't in restricted airspace, following all the regulations, and the operator had the proper part 107 license there is nothing illegal about using a drone in this manner. There have been various discussions over the years about "owning" airspace over ones property but nothing has even gone to court that I'm aware of. Not to mention the company could have well seen onto the persons property while being over public space (I.E. the road).

I'm not arguing if this was right or wrong, but I see nothing illegal here.

[-] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

Complete speculation on my part, but privacy laws? My understanding is that in the US, broadly speaking, you have a right to privacy where it would be reasonably expected, which I've usually heard defined as places you can't easily see from the sidewalk. If my understanding is true, then this would be an invasion of privacy just like some creep standing on a ladder peeping on people in their high fenced backyards, and there are generally laws against such behavior.

[-] 0110010001100010@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

The article touches on that part actually right at the end:

As for legality of taking drone pictures over a house? California state law only forbids that if you're specifically doing so as a sort of peeping tom.

[-] nan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Would’ve been nice if they explained it a bit more.

For example, California has some civil laws covering such things due to paparazzi using technology, but the key with those is the intent to capture people’s activities: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1708.8.&lawCode=CIV

[-] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I think it’s a proximity thing. The risk of a drone crashing over a yard is part of that factor I think, which makes sense. Imagine a big drone crashing on some kid’s head 😬

[-] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Oh nice, that's what I get for not reading it

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago

Don't be like reddit, read the articles before commenting my dude. I know it's a difficult habit to break, but you're less likely to end up looking like a fool and you get to poke fun at the people who obviously aren't reading the articles either!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
171 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37676 readers
153 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS