On 2016-05-28 12:04, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

At least one US case was thrown out after a homeowner shot down a drone
due to invasion of privacy. That sets precedence.

that was because it was creeping on his teenage daughter by the pool.

The ruling cited privacy. What that privacy is is irrelevant.

it's not irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant. Privacy means nobody should know what the
substance of what was private. The father's motivations may be narrower
- but the judge's ruling is what was relevant: privacy.

then why not shoot down *any* plane that overflys someone's property?

See[1] before replying.

If a helicopter were operating low and near enough with no obvious other
purpose than to invade your privacy, then you could likely get away with
it. OTOH, the endangering/taking of human life in that situation would
put you at serious odds with the law. One would be better to bring the
action to the FAA. If there was possible invasion of privacy, then just
make a police complaint and/or sue. (As the fellow in this case could
have done as well).


where i live, small planes often fly over houses at around 2000 feet
(the lowest i've seen is 1700 feet).

[1] Unless there is NOTAM to the contrary they can fly down to 1000'
above the height of the buildings in a populated area and a lateral
clearance of 2000' from structures (tower, building). Lower for the
purpose of landing/taking off (eg: if there is a runway that has an
approach/departure over the built area.)


someone on board could have a high resolution camera with a long
telephoto lens and get far better quality results than from an fpv
drone that's a few hundred feet up.

True to form you miss the point.

The operation of the drone in this case was in a flight operations grey
zone, but in a clear invasion of privacy zone irrespective of what was
going on in private.

As to the rest, in the US (generally) aircraft can fly in unpopulated
areas 500' above ground; 1000' above populated areas (towns) or lower
(in both cases) for the purpose of taking off/landing provided the later
does not pass 83' above a private property. And the 2000' lateral rule.
(I don't recall the over-water rules which are more lenient other than
the 2000' lateral rule (IIRC)).

The area where this incident took place was sufficiently built up that
one would have to stay above 1000'. A stabilized telephoto shot (and
yes, you would need a stabilization system) from there that would invade
privacy would be a very expensive endeavour and not likely at all except
perhaps for law enforcement or ENG. The later are very careful about
what they shoot and the former need cause or warrant.

--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.