The proliferation of private drone type aircraft

[Racket_Man]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...woman/275769/#

OK I get that the Supream Court ruled 65 years ago that the skys are "public highway" but when you hover a helocopter or quad-copter equiped with a camera just outside someones window that crosses the line.

[Andara Bledin]

Freaking peeping tom.

I think I'd be tempted the hose the thing down... After issuing a warning, of course.

[mikoyan29]

I wish people would quit making a big deal out of it because it is "drones". This technology has been around for a long time. It has nothing to do with the fact that it is drones...it has more to do with the fact that someone is doing something they shouldn't.

[Andara Bledin]

I suspect that the whole "air space" issue will likely be sorted out (after the relevant court cases hit) to be that if it's below a ceiling x feet from the top of the roof, then it's the air space of the property and just as much no trespassing territory as climbing a tree.

[Nekojin]

It's going to have to be more specific than that. The laws are going to have to spell out what sort of surveillance is legal, legal-with-permit-or-warrant, or outright illegal. If you put, say, a 100 foot floor on public airspace, you'll still have people hovering at 101 feet with a telephoto lens.

There may not be any privacy online, but a large portion of the point of a house or apartment is to have privacy. If this sort of peeping is allowed to continue, I can see a new fad for bedrooms without windows.

[Andara Bledin]

The telephoto lens part is already covered by existing laws, mostly in response to paparazzi violating a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.'

Now that miniaturization has made tiny cameras pretty much ubiquitous, the law needs to catch up and put them in the same category. You should reasonably expect to have privacy inside your third story room if there are no buildings of a similar height nearby.