Is it legal to shoot a drone?

[n5wd]

Another consideration to think about:

Your ol' lady is lying down in the back yard wanting that all-over tan. She sees a drone flying at the back edge of your property (let's say it was a suburban area, large lots with an alley in between). You walk out, responding to her scream, and pop a shot at the drone (don't miss, though - that bullet or pellets have got to go somewhere, and you don't want to hit the kids in the lot a few yards south of you).

You hit the drone - it crashes into your yard (or the alley) and you retrieve it. While inspecting it you notice the company name on it and call it. They say they'd like their drone back. In fact, they're sending someone out right now to re-posses their property. And the front door bell rings. And you open it to find a mean looking deputy sheriff, along side a guy in a flight suit.

It seems that you took down a $5,000 drone that was photographing the house behind yours for the real-estate office that's handling the sale of the house. The company that operates the drone gets $500 per house to do a package of video and still photograph, and it was doing a 360 degree orbit around the house when all this went down.

And, oh, by the way, the sherriff is there to arrest you for destruction of private property over $2,000 (the camera being flow by the drone is a special one) and its on-board diagnostics shows that it's trash, now.

Seems the drone company had a permit from the county to do the flights, and ... well, you see where this is going, don't you?

I'm not saying that the whole thing isn't worth it to you and the ol' lady, but not all the drones flying around are owned by a hobbyist that invested $49 at Radio Shack for a toy quadcopter.

So... you're saying the government can give 3rd parties permission to make a porno starring my hypothetical wife without her knowledge or consent?

No, nothing of the sort. In this case, the cameras were pointed in the other direction. Your wife, who probably shouldn't be doing pornographic things in the backyard, anyway, because it might offend other neighbors, had nothing to worry about in this fictional situation.

[n5wd]

For Dave2, I can't easily cut and paste the relevant message on this Ipad, but you were questioning the resolution and close-up-ness of yoday's optics, but.. You'd be amazed at what a gyrostabilized TV optic can capture these days. You sometimes see it on the fly-cameras used in pro football stadiums, or on the news, where a TV station has a copter that's well equipped, say like a couple of yhe DFW station.

I used to do the morning traffic for a DFW radio station, and worked out of the station's Fort Worth ofgice. I was just finishing up one morning when one of the cameramen was previewing a tape, shot by the ststion's helicopter photojournalist, thst was a "best of" various thing they har photographed while fling around... Such as a nudist camp near Alvord, various topless ladies sunbathing in the privacy of their own back yards, people doing various thing when they thought no one could see, etc.

And that was over two decades ago. The improvement inoptics since then convince me that if you can see or hear an aircraft or helicopter flying around, they can be photographing you well enough to ID you, and tell exactly what you are doing.

And, of course, that doesn't even begin to mention the NSA's (and other government's) capabilities.

A little OT, but still relevant, I think.

[cb1000rider]

Here's a good example of the type of optics (non-classified) that are available to the government:
http://www.gigapixel.com/mobile/?id=79995

Make sure you zoom in... Have a look at the level of detail.

Google maps - that stuff, it's all interesting, but we don't get to see the real technology.

[RogueUSMC]

Dude says, "I see you!"

[KD5NRH]

Here is the full law

I'm pretty sure you're correct in your assumption. If you're just flying your drone without the intent to "conduct surveillance" then you're good to go. If you happen to catch images of your neighbors that they wouldn't want published then you must delete them. If you do delete them ASAP then it is listed as a defense to prosecution.

Then again, what is a satellite but a really high altitude drone? Shouldn't the state be going after every company that has a downward facing camera on a satellite?

[cb1000rider]

hmmm...
how about a frequency oscillator and a parabolic dish?
no physical harm to the drone unless it does a high speed crash, but interrupting the signal from the operator would either cause the device to return or land..
just thinking passive restraint here..

Modern digital transmitters are really really good, at least compared to what we were using 30+ years go where we'd regularly lose model aircraft due to "glitches". Frequencies were managed back then by use of colored flags. I haven't had so much as a nudge of interference since switching to digital.

What you're suggesting is probably illegal - it's not a passive thing - it's active jamming. Almost all devices that create RF have that FCC sticker that says they can't create interference and have to accept interference. I'm sure you can create enough RF on the right frequency to mask controls, especially if focused with a dish.

Practically, probably work and would be real hard to catch... The biggest problem would be the video feed that might show you with a parabolic dish...

Probably wouldn't work for autonomous drones, which is the type most likely to be doing fly-bys.

[KD5NRH]

Practically, probably work and would be real hard to catch... The biggest problem would be the video feed that might show you with a parabolic dish...

Probably wouldn't work for autonomous drones, which is the type most likely to be doing fly-bys.

Don't forget that a lot of the high-end RC ones are also semi-autonomous; they can have a lot of different things programmed for loss of signal besides immediate landing or return to takeoff point. I know some of the Hexacopter control modules are good enough to handle stationkeeping until the battery reaches a certain preset level, then fly by GPS to a location and auto land.

[VMI77]

Here's a good example of the type of optics (non-classified) that are available to the government:
http://www.gigapixel.com/mobile/?id=79995

Make sure you zoom in... Have a look at the level of detail.

Google maps - that stuff, it's all interesting, but we don't get to see the real technology.

That image is comprised of 216 photos. My relatively inexpensive Nikon has about the same single image resolution as the images in that montage, or, I should say, is capable of, depending on the optics. I've got a cheap ($150) 800mm telephoto that can get pretty close to that level of detail if I'm careful about the settings. I can distinguish people and objects in a high rise close to a mile away....well enough to get a "that's scary" reaction out of my wife. I'm always amazed at how far I can zoom in even using just a standard lens.

Given the image is comprised of photos taken over a 15 minute period I'm more surprised by how static the crowd was than anything else. The stitching is obvious in places, but not anywhere near what I would have expected. Sure wish the technical details were published....camera, lens, process. I can just imagine the possibilities with one of those 800mm lenses that go for $15,000 or so.

[fickman]

It's fun to discuss, but in reality, I'd categorize this in the "if it's not threatening to cause death or serious bodily harm, I'll act as if I don't have a gun."

Take pictures, report it, spray water, learn to use a boomerang / lasso / Batman-esque grappling hook, become a falconer, whatever you have to do. . .

[bmwrdr]

hmmm...

how about a frequency oscillator and a parabolic dish?

no physical harm to the drone unless it does a high speed crash, but interrupting the signal from the operator would either cause the device to return or land..


just thinking passive restraint here..

You could use one of those shown in the article below.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... PILOT.html

[Keith B]

The Daily Caller is running a poll asking if you should have the right to shoot down a drone over your property http://dailycaller.com/dc_polls/dcpoll2 ... ent=Drones" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jimlongley]

The Daily Caller is running a poll asking if you should have the right to shoot down a drone over your property http://dailycaller.com/dc_polls/dcpoll2 ... ent=Drones" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to their stats, 444,000 + people have voted, at a rate of 89% for.

I hope they don't extend that to hot air balloons. One of my favorite activities when ballooning is talking to folks on the ground.

hmmm...
how about a frequency oscillator and a parabolic dish?
no physical harm to the drone unless it does a high speed crash, but interrupting the signal from the operator would either cause the device to return or land..
just thinking passive restraint here..

Modern digital transmitters are really really good, at least compared to what we were using 30+ years go where we'd regularly lose model aircraft due to "glitches". Frequencies were managed back then by use of colored flags. I haven't had so much as a nudge of interference since switching to digital.

What you're suggesting is probably illegal - it's not a passive thing - it's active jamming. Almost all devices that create RF have that FCC sticker that says they can't create interference and have to accept interference. I'm sure you can create enough RF on the right frequency to mask controls, especially if focused with a dish.

Practically, probably work and would be real hard to catch... The biggest problem would be the video feed that might show you with a parabolic dish...

Probably wouldn't work for autonomous drones, which is the type most likely to be doing fly-bys.

I do have a little thought about RF interference - if you have a ham license and interfere with an unlicensed device, it is the unlicensed device that has to accept the interference (well, it is more complicated than that, but that is the simple explanation) so, setting up, say, a moon bounce array on the appropriate frequency and pumping 1000 watts into the array might allow you to shoot a drone down with RF, but you probably better be able to show that you were actually pointing at the Moon or another ham.

Of course you could also complain to the FCC (not the FAA) that a drone is interfering with your home electronics, and especially your licensed equipment, but the FCC is much less pro-active about chasing interference complaints these days, so if your complaint doesn't get labeled as a crank, it might take years for it to percolate to the top of the list to look into.

[Dave2]

Of course you could also complain to the FCC (not the FAA) that a drone is interfering with your home electronics, and especially your licensed equipment, but the FCC is much less pro-active about chasing interference complaints these days, so if your complaint doesn't get labeled as a crank, it might take years for it to percolate to the top of the list to look into.

Unless you're an airport or EMS or something. Or so I've heard, anyway.

[Dave2]

As for the cameras on helicopters, I can tell you they can get extremely clear zoomed video from 4-5 miles away if the air is clear. Here is video of me flying some of Fox 4's people and the helicopter was over 1 mile out from us. The video was HD on the television and VERY clear.

[video]http://youtu.be/kaIsouojQ_s?t=11m[/video]

Right, but in that video, the balloons was being actively tracked by the camera operator. If you look in the background, all those houses are just a blur because they aren't what the film crew is focused on. And that's what I'm talking about... A situation where a helicopter is just flying around and, for whatever reason, the camera just happens to be on and zoomed way in, but without the film crew controlling it. I am of the opinion that the resulting video would be pretty useless for violating the privacy of whomever it happened to be pointed at. Or at least I was until...

For Dave2, I can't easily cut and paste the relevant message on this Ipad, but you were questioning the resolution and close-up-ness of yoday's optics, but.. You'd be amazed at what a gyrostabilized TV optic can capture these days. You sometimes see it on the fly-cameras used in pro football stadiums, or on the news, where a TV station has a copter that's well equipped, say like a couple of yhe DFW station.

I used to do the morning traffic for a DFW radio station, and worked out of the station's Fort Worth ofgice. I was just finishing up one morning when one of the cameramen was previewing a tape, shot by the ststion's helicopter photojournalist, thst was a "best of" various thing they har photographed while fling around...

Well, now I'm not so sure... Was said photojournalist filming all that on purpose, or did the cameras just happen to catch it?

And that was over two decades ago. The improvement inoptics since then convince me that if you can see or hear an aircraft or helicopter flying around, they can be photographing you well enough to ID you, and tell exactly what you are doing.

Agreed, but in that situation you're their target, which is not what I'm talking about.

And, of course, that doesn't even begin to mention the NSA's (and other government's) capabilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA could count the hairs on my head from satellites orbiting Mars, but again, that's not what I'm talking about.
(Ok, I'd be a little surprised. But just a little... )