How Low Can Drones Go?
from the question-questions-questions dept
As we've pointed out in a few stories, drones aren't necessarily something to worry about. Like any technology, they can be used for good and bad purposes, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. But determining where exactly the line between acceptable and unacceptable lies is tricky, as the following story from the Capitol Hill Seattle blog shows:
This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day.
So how close does a drone have to be to someone's home before it becomes intrusive? Clearly, at some height the air is part of the sky commons that belongs to everyone, as a famous 1946 US Supreme Court decision laid down:
The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea.
The post continues:
After several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. He purported to be doing "research". We are extremely concerned, as he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house or a peeping-tom.
Those sound like reasonable concerns. So does that mean that drones with cameras need to fly further away from the property of others than those without, so that the images they capture don't invade people's privacy? How might we set that distance? These and related questions are starting to be posed more frequently, as more drones enter our skies. At some point, we will need to start coming up with some answers that most people find reasonable.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Skycrime
I'd suggest taking an interest in air rifles, water fights or just throwing rocks. After all his drone has no more right to be there than anything else and is quite a bit more fragile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Skycrime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Skycrime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Skycrime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Skycrime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting question
You could also look at New York and their "air rights" over buildings. Another issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting question
If you're higher than the buildings, you're in the public highway.
Of course, even if you're in the public highway, you might still be liable in the event of a noise complaint or for being a peeping tom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not that hard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not that hard
Even better a hose would make for a good 'rule of thumb' way to determine if it's too close, as if you can hit it with a stream of water, then I'd say it's fair game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not that hard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not that hard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not that hard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not that hard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not that hard
Just try to keep the warhead level down.
And remember, if it gets one inch out of your yard, your neighbour might deploy his Super-Targetted Anti-Random Whack-A-Robot System.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not that hard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would think a can of spray epoxy would be enough to take care of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good luck trying to fly when your rotor strut is flopping around like a rubber band...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legality vs voyeurism
2)I agree with the option of it having an accident during it's incursion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legality vs voyeurism
2)I agree with the option of it having an accident during it's incursion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
privacy's dead
Now if only all surveillance equipment could store everything forever, and make it absolutely transparently public, that would change the world for the better.
Because the data that models my whole life is worth less than the combined value of everyone else's, and NO sane human can say that theirs is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: privacy's dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: privacy's dead
In my opinion, any "drone" that points a recording device within range to get a decently clear picture or video should be considered trespassing. The problem is when technolgy keeps improving, that may turn from 50 ft to 500 ft pretty quickly....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: privacy's dead
Because the data that models my whole life is worth less than the combined value of everyone else's, and NO sane human can say that theirs is.
If the parties were on an equal footing, you might well be right. As things stand, private individuals may end up made of glass, while important government agencies stay pretty smoky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, at least there's some resistance here to spying.
Definition of intrustion can't be limited to only when above your property, let alone when the drone operator is in sight, or known. Also, shooting one down even if over your property will only lead to tangles that you don't want. -- Just ask Iran about the grief they've gotten for shooting down spying US drones. -- And the notion that you're going to mount your own constant air defense is silly.
But there IS an easy definition of spying even in a public space, and that's when stopped or practically so to focus on one location; applies to people, Google Glass, or drones.
Passing by might be okay (unless spying is the only purpose, as Google Streetview), but when stopped to ogle, it crosses over the creepy line. (And for the nit-pickers, that can be stretched when a public event, such as police arresting someone, but Google Glass in constant operation at a cocktail party, or a drone hovering in residential area has to be considered firmly out of bounds.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, at least there's some resistance here to spying.
Now if we ignore your constant, insane ravings against Google, you're right. We already have laws that could cover this, and laws against destroying things that happen to be flying over your house.
Added bonus: when I read this story a few days ago, that article went out of it's way to mention the drone's camera was pointed in the window. That runs afoul of laws that even cover cameras not on your property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, people not all machinery will short circuit if you spray it with water. Some of them are build to be water proof, by preventing water from getting on the inside where it does the actual damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The 'spray it with water' idea isn't so much frying the circuits, as it is 'knocking it out of the air with the water pressure by throwing it off balance'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 22nd, 2013 @ 5:44am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 22nd, 2013 @ 5:44am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
30 year old debate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 30 year old debate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 50 year old debate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how far away is that given that satellites can take pictures so detail that you can read a newspaper from space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to..
In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Typically, in the "Uncontrolled" category of airspace, any pilot can fly any aircraft as low as he or she wants, subject to the requirement of maintaining a 500-foot (150 m) distance from people and man-made structures except for purposes of takeoff and landing, and not causing any hazard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: According to..
I think a simpler solution would be to expand property lines to include a bubble 50 or 100 feet above the ground making it possible to trespass even while hovering above the ground. Then simple trespass laws take it from there. Including the property owner's option to permit or deny entry as desired, and the ability of authorities to override those limits if needed.
It's a matter of respect as much as anything else. Like anyone else they are welcome to take pictures from the roadway, but not from the window ledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: According to..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: According to..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: According to..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: According to..
If anything, I think companies will push the other way, for rapid adoption, and then we'll have to figure out how to keep them from constantly colliding with each other. But I suppose if the drones all have monitors, they can navigate through lower airspace full of flying objects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: According to..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peeping Tom
I think the appropriate response is to call the cops, report a peeping tom, let him do some research in the municipal court system.
For that matter, use of hobby R/C aircraft is also restricted to certain areas in some cities/towns/hamlets/etc. If there were such a law where the incident occurred, I see no reason it wouldn't cover a "drone", "drone" being just a particular kind of R/C aircraft. Again, the pilot could "research" this possibility in the municipal court setting as well.
But the "garden hose" solutions proposed in other posts also sound satisfying.
Administering an "ass whoopin'", "ass kickin'", "beat down" or other euphemism for assault and battery cannot be condoned for legal and safety reasons. A citizen would have to make their own judgement call if they could win the physical and legal fight if that were the approach used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Precedents.
=========================================================
FLORIDA v. RILEY, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), 488 U.S. 445, a case where a police helicopter observed cannabis.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=488&invol=445
"Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more." "Neither is there any intimation here that the helicopter interfered with respondent's normal use of the greenhouse or of other parts of the curtilage. As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, and no wind, dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment."
------------------------------------------------------
JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting.
"If so, I think we could take judicial notice that, while there may be an occasional privately owned helicopter that flies over populated areas at an altitude of 400 feet, such flights are a rarity and are almost entirely limited to approaching or leaving airports or to reporting traffic congestion near major roadways. And, as the concurrence agrees, ante, at 455, the extent of police surveillance traffic cannot serve as a bootstrap to demonstrate public use of the airspace."
===============================================================================
http:// www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/doe/o5632_7/o5632_7_c5_1.htm
Department of Energy Flight guidelines for security helicopters:
" g. Altitude Considerations.
(1) Routine Training and Operations.
(a) Daylight Operations. Aircraft shall maintain a minimum
altitude of 200 feet above any known obstacle within 500
feet either side of the planned route of flight during
daylight operations except for takeoff, approach, and
landing.
(b) Night and Night Vision Goggle Operations. Except for
takeoff, approach, and landing, aircraft shall maintain a
minimum altitude of 500 feet above ground level or 200
feet above the highest obstacle within 1,000 feet either
side of the planned flight route, whichever is higher.
When using night vision goggles, aircraft shall maintain
a minimum altitude of 300 feet above ground level or 200
feet above the highest obstacle within 1,000 feet of the
planned route of flight, whichever is higher.
(2) Hazard Mapping. Each aircraft shall be equipped with a map
displaying all identifiable hazards to flight within the
operating area. A map displaying all identifiable hazards to
flight and depicting elevation above ground level shall be
conspicuously posted in the mission planning area. Aircraft
maps and mission planning area maps shall be reviewed for
currency at least every 30 days and marked with the current
date.
h. Terrain Flight (Nap of the Earth, Contour and Low Level). There
are three modes of terrain flight: contour, low level, and nap, of
the earth. Terrain flight is flight at 200 feet or less above the
highest obstacle on the intended flight path. Terrain flight and
night vision device/goggle flight are essential to DOE tactical and
security needs. Low level or, contour flight may provide a
tactical advantage in a security emergency. Nap of the earth
flight is not essential to the Department's security needs and will
not be performed.
(1) Contour flight conforms with the contours of the earth and is
characterized by varying airspeeds and altitudes. Contour
flight altitudes are not less than 25 feet above the highest
obstacle.
(2) Low level flight is not less than 100 feet above the highest
obstacle. It is conducted at a selected altitude and
generally conforms to a predetermined course, with constant
airspeed.
(3) Nap of the earth flight is characterized by maneuvers as close
to the earth's surface as vegetation, obstacles, or ambient
light will permit."
====================================================================
http://amablog.model aircraft.org/amagov/2012/02/15/president-signs-faa-bill-includes-protection-for-model-aviation/
= ====================================================================
http://www.ar15.com/archive/ topic.html?b=1&f=147&t=1152754
===========================================================
http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=32597
Reference to: National Parks Overflights Act
http://nature.nps.gov/sound/policy.cfm
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_of fices/arc/programs/air_tour_management_plan/documents/npatm_act136.pdf
defines a control zone, below 5000 ft. above ground level, in which regulation of air tour operators may take place.
specific prohibition on flying lower than 2000 ft above the rim in Yosemite
===========================================================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Precedents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Precedents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Precedents.
They are mostly seen serenely floating high in the sky. But they have to take off and land without any control of which direction they are going. And when they get in a competition, all bets are off.
If a hot air balloon gets above the tree line, the wind takes them where it wants to - same with terrain. I have seen a hot air balloon going up a ravine with half the air bag showing and none of the gondola. The same balloon was following a cow that was running for her life, kicking up her heels over rough terrain, with the occupants shouting "Nice cow! It's OK, cow!"
I have a friend who had an electric fence knocked over by a hot air balloon. He had to put things back to rights before his cattle got out.
But hot air balloons, as well as Bambizilla, have great public images. It's like attacking motherhood and apple pie if you complain about them.
To the commenters who wanted to shoot the drone and beat up the operator, it's a natural reaction. Resist it with everything you've got. Assault is based on what the other person perceives, not on what you do. And if you get charged, then your property is at risk. It's entirely backwards, but so is much of the US legal scenery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Precedents.
f) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get this...
I'm actually amazed this guy got away without a broken jaw. Personally if I saw a drone flying low enough to peek in my windows and I knew where the guy was, I would take a picture of the drone, picture of the guy, and then bring the drone to the ground and see if I can collect footage from it (most of the camera on-board also do on-board recording). So if the guy goes to the police, I have proof he was using it maliciously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good overview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silly sting and more!
Better yet think of all the innovation it would cause via patents with the words "from a drone" at the end. Hell you could even film it and patent the business model for selling the films to double down on innovation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Water Blasts are nice, but...
A blast of water is nice but could prompt this very rude hobbyist to get angry and take a swing at you.
Being a FPV(First Person Video) MULTICOPTER (Not DRONE, please!) hobbyist and pilot myself I can tell you that while the control signals from the transmitter are fairly secure 2.4 gigahertz band frequency hopping transmissions, the video transmissions from the copter to the Pilot's video goggles are simple FM (Frequency modulation) signals and are subject to jamming with a stronger signal. I can also tell you that the video is either on the 900mhz band or the 5.8 gigahertz band and more likely the latter.
The next time he shows up, send someone else down to ask interested party questions to get more technical information about his video link frequency. Then buy a 600mW transmitter you need. It will cost under $100. Buy a "board camera" too for $30. Install this setup near a window with the camera focused on a small sign that sends a "very special message" to your pest hobbyist.
Personally, I'd like to apologize to everyone about this guy. Virtually all of us FPV guys are just out having fun flying our model aircraft and are not interested in invading anyone's privacy. Please don't lump us in with this jerk.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Water Blasts are nice, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Water Blasts are nice, but...
A matching receiver typically comes with the transmitter. Once again, both for less than $100. You could attach a USB Video capture dongle to the receiver and record some of his flight video on a notebook PC, then loop it back to him via your more powerful transmitter. This would likely confuse him enough to end the flight quickly in a crash. But work fast, his flight will typically last only 8 to 12 minutes.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Water Blasts are nice, but...
In the UK you are not allowed to fly within 50 metres of someone else's house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
okay, I finally see the privacy issues involved with a googular glass type device
As for drones looking in windows, that is no different from some clown with his pud in his hand peaking through your window whilst they crouch in the bushes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB00912I.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drones
> the sky commons that belongs to everyone,
> as a famous 1946 US Supreme Court decision
> laid down
Yes, most states have set minimum altitude limits for aircraft, which allow for normal aviation, but also protect the rights of private property owners.
Basically, anything below the statutory altitude becomes a trespass. It's why paparazzi and news helicopters in Los Angeles have to stay way up there when covering everything from celebrity weddings to Lindsay Lohan's latest trek to the courthouse. They can zoom in with their cameras all they like, but the aircraft has to remain above 3000 feet (if I recall the number correctly).
I can't imagine that the State of Washington doesn't have some similar law, which would clearly make this drone flyer a trespasser. Even if they don't, the homeowner is certainly free to knock the thing out of the air with a baseball bat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Drones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Drones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
That preserves both the property owner's privacy and trespass rights, while still allowing for legitimate commercial aviation activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
That would eliminate many of the proposed uses for commercial drones, like deliveries. If drone use is going to be fully commercialized, it isn't going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
One must recognize that the basis of the Federal Air Regulations is not property, but safety. The minimum altitudes are designed to prevent crashes. Of course, they are designed to prevent "joyriding," ie. someone in a small private plane deciding he's Chuck Yeager, and forgetting that the real Yeager had the United States Air Force behind him. More mundanely, the regulations prevent people who are not instrument-qualified from trying to scoot in under clouds which are only a couple of hundred feet above the ground. A typical sort of accident runs like the following: someone without an instrument rating tried to fly through one of the passes in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, or the Sierra Madre/San Gabriel Mountains. Only, the cloud base was below the pass altitude that day. The pilot flew up a valley which became a canyon, and became narrower and narrower, and the ground beneath came up, and the clouds came down, to the point that he no longer had room to turn back, and he flew into a mountainside. The effect of Parts 91.119 and 91.195, is that the pilot has to quit while he still has room to turn back.
Bear in mind that the aircraft regulations do not apply to to unlicenced consumer drones, which are considered toys. The one Federal rule which applies to them is that they are supposed to stay below 400 ft, leaving a hundred feet of separation between them and a real airplane at 500 feet or above. I believe that they are also supposed to be kept within line of sight from the operator. This seems like something which is liable to be evaded, so it could probably be improved by specifying an actual maximum horizontal distance and an altitude/distance table. And of course, make the manufacturers build these restrictions into the control system. That won't stop a hacker, but it will at least contain the idiots. I suspect that the man in Seattle qualifies as an idiot.
As for Papparazis, I have an idea that a sophisticated camera can probably compensate for distance.
To: Suzanne Lainson:
I don't think the delivery-by-drone thing is going to work. For one thing, the drone has to put the parcel somewhere the recipient can retrieve it, and that probably means flying into a location where people are walking around. Practically speaking, you need to put a parcel under a porch, or in a mailbox, or wherever, where it can be protected from the elements. There are various different ways of going about it, but they are all more or less expensive, and generally more complicated than driving a truck to the recipient's door. Pilots spend a lot of time worrying about winds and clouds and rain, because an aircraft rides on the air, and the air moves. It's more like sailing a sailboat than driving a car. If United Parcel only delivered when the sky was blue, it would be a hopelessly inefficient service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
Are Beer Drones the Future of Music Festivals? A Q&A With Darkwing Aerial's Dean Engela | Billboard
I can see it being used to drop supplies in remote areas, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea.
If that's true, why do you need special permits to fly model aircraft over a certain size or launch large rockets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh for the drones!
There has to be some limits put on the drones.
Anyone agree or disagree with me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh for the drones!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Researching".. Yea right!
& he really cracks me up by saying he was "researching"... I mean, c'mon now... Seems like he's an introvert that prefers a drone to do his dirty voyeurisms...
How about we don't research our next door neighbours so intrusively, and just ascend into open air with on balloon flight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlicenced aircraft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drone research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drone research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]