Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Crime Privacy Government Technology

Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses 200

Fubar writes: Two city council members from Phoenix, AZ are introducing "draft language" for public discussion that would make it illegal to use a drone to film people without their knowledge. The council members are worred about privacy of people in their own yards, even including the requirement that law enforcement obtain a warrant for drone surveillance. A violation of the ordinance would be a Class 1 misdemeanor, which carries up to a $2,500 fine and six months in jail.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses

Comments Filter:
  • Re:well (Score:3, Informative)

    by CauseBy ( 3029989 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @01:31PM (#47704733)

    B) that's pretty much the meaning of the proposed law, isn't it?

    In my opinion people should have some privacy in their yard -- less, maybe, than indoors but still more than none. I welcome laws giving me some rights in that area.

  • by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @01:41PM (#47704845)

    The law will use the word 'consent', not 'knowledge' Don't assume shitty slashdot summaries are ever going to be written into law.

  • Re:well (Score:5, Informative)

    by TVmisGuided ( 151197 ) <alan.jump@ g m a> on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @02:06PM (#47705081) Homepage

    Do people legally have privacy in an uncovered yard? I don't think they do. I'm talk about legal, not rudeness.

    In the book The Law (In Plain English) For Photographers (ISBN 978-1-58115-712-3), attorney Tad Williams discusses the right of privacy as it applies to photographers. Two cases in point are mentioned: Dietemann v. Time, Inc. (284 F. Supp. 925, 1968) and Galella v. Onassis (487 F.2d 986, 1973). Those are the two cases most often cited as examples of the tort of "intrusion on one's seclusion", and are the basis of the doctrine of "reasonable expectation of privacy on one's own property". (I leave the review of those cases as an exercise for the student.)

    The general rule of thumb for photographers is that if it can be seen from a public place, it can be photographed from a public place, UNLESS the subject being photographed is on their private property. Keeping in mind that anyone can be sued for anything at any time, it's best that a quadcopter operator err on the side of caution and make sure to NOT fly their aircraft in a manner that could be construed as attempting to make photographs of persons on private property without consent.

    Of course, it may require a few people having their expensive quadcopters blown out of the air by a well-placed shotgun round to get that message across.

    DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney and am not qualified to give legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney with experience in the subject matter for definitive legal advice regarding a particular situation. I am, however, a photographer, and make it a point to keep up with laws and ordinances that affect my enjoyment of the hobby of photography.

MESSAGE ACKNOWLEDGED -- The Pershing II missiles have been launched.