Privacy

New Zealand: Christchurch drone operator urges suspicious public to stay grounded

Posted on by mecicon

by  • 

carlsheppard

CHRIS BARCLAY

Commercial drones operators are urging the public not to become paranoid after a spate of privacy stoushes.

The increasing use of drones has raised concerns about potential invasions of privacy, particularly after the Civil Aviation Authority introduced new regulations covering the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) on August 1.

In Timaru last month, police spoke to a drone operator after his machine followed a woman home from a dairy.

Charges were considered under the Harassment Act but no further action was taken because officers accepted the man was just learning to fly the drone.

However, Simon Done was sentenced to 80 hours’ community work and ordered to pay drone owner Aaron Wagstaff reparation after he stomped on his $1700 “Phantom 3″.

The remote-controlled craft had been taking scenic shots over an estuary Waikanae, north of Wellington, last month.

Done, who was found guilty of intentional damage, said he was concerned about people recording footage from drones and was standing up for personal privacy.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/71690171/Christchurch-drone-operator-urges-suspicious-public-to-stay-grounded

Man Indicted For Shotgun Blasts At Hovering Drone

Posted on by mecicon

droneview465

AUGUST 25–A grand jury today indicted a New Jersey man on two felony charges for allegedly firing a shotgun at a hobbyist’s drone as it hovered near his residence last year.

Russell Percenti, 33, is facing criminal mischief and possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose charges. The latter count carries a maximum of ten years in prison, while Percenti could face up to 18 months on the lesser felony rap.

Percenti, pictured at right, was arrested last September after Leonard Helbig reported that someone “shot his drone out of the air with a shotgun while he was taking pictures of a friend’s property that is under construction.”

A subsequent police investigation determined that Percenti, a restaurant employee, shot at the drone while it flew near his family’s residence in Cape May County at New Jersey’s southern tip.

As seen in the above photo  shot by Helbig’s drone, his friend’s property abuts the Percenti residence, which has an above-ground pool and a rear deck. It is unclear whether Percenti is the individual seen standing on the deck in the below drone photo

Helbig told TSG that the $1300 drone was about 100 feet above the ground when it was fired upon. Helbig, who operates Cape May Miniature Golf, estimated that five shots were fired at the drone, which he said was “destroyed” by the shotgun blasts.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/new-jersey-drone-shooting-case-213450

It’s the end of privacy as we know it!

Posted on by mecicon

by  • 

 

wecanspy

I have become a bit hesitant to tell people that I work with drones, despite the fact that I love working with this wonderful new technology. Almost every time I tell someone they say, “Oh, those are used for spying, right?” and I have to resist the urge to say something snarky about how unfounded that notion of unmanned technology is.

My understanding is that the majority of people have unrealistic expectations about privacy to begin with. Did you know that it’s legal for a person to photograph another person in their own home without their consent, and then sell those photos in a public gallery? Most people don’t know that, as evidenced by the man who is now facing felony destruction of property charges for shooting his neighbor’s drone down.

 

It is important to know the boundaries of privacy these days, and it isn’t necessarily what feels right anymore. What the gentleman who shot down that drone didn’t know; you don’t own all the sky over your property, (otherwise how would commercial airlines operate?), the drone cost over $1000, and by going out in his backyard he had significantly reduced expectations of privacy. Unfortunately, that combination will probably not end up in his favor.If people were to make a concentrated, deliberate effort to change these problematic privacy laws, would targeting drone technology really be the best way to go about it? Wouldn’t it be better to establish a baseline for privacy, regardless of the technology? Drones are hardly the primary perpetrators of privacy violation, in the era of data breaches. From the FBI to Target to Ashley Madison, anywhere you can put personal information someone can take it and distribute it elsewhere. While I can sympathize with the momentary surprise of seeing a drone overhead, I still think I would prefer that to having my identity stolen.

As if it’s not bad enough that hackers will steal your information, when companies like Facebook “help” a social movement by facilitating thousands of people putting a rainbow filter over their profile picture the are really studying you as social trend data. You are nothing but a data commodity to these people, and they own your activity to whatever extent it benefits them.Did you even consent to being such a hot commodity?

While there is still something to be said for respecting physical privacy, the more serious privacy concern should be about data aggregation that is tethered to our identity. Practically, there isn’t really a lot you can do with a photo except look at it, which isn’t that damaging; it wont ruin your credit or reveal your web history. In the age of computer technology infiltrating every aspect of life, people need to reshape the way they think about privacy.

Between the amount of information that is constantly being gathered and the power of computing programs these days, I would think people would be more worried that their personal information, habits and preferences are being tracked, analyzed, and monetized, because it seems like there is a new data breach in the news every day. People with drones hardly seem like much of a privacy concern in comparison, right?

http://www.suasnews.com/2015/08/38028/its-the-end-of-privacy-as-we-know-it/

Downing drone at beach leads to jail

Posted on by mecicon

phantomstatue

By Kristina Davis

ENCINITAS — A confrontation over a drone flying above beachgoers ended with damaged equipment, a man behind bars and lingering questions over the line between public air space and personal space.

Augustine Lehecka, a Carlsbad electronic engineer, said he was enjoying the ideal summer afternoon at Moonlight Beach in Encinitas with friends on Sunday. A rock ‘n’ roll band was on stage, the water was warm for bodysurfing and the beach was packed.

Then came an uninvited guest.

Lehecka, 53, said a sophisticated drone flew over his group of about 10 friends, which included two young children. He said it was flying dangerously low, its four blades whirring overhead like a lawn mower, and its mounted camera swiveling back and forth apparently aimed at the group.

“We had like a peeping Tom,” he recalled Wednesday. “I felt threatened.”

He said he motioned for the drone to leave them alone, but it didn’t appear to work. Concerned for the safety of the group, as well as their privacy, he decided to take further action.

He took off his shirt and tossed it at the drone.

“I’m a big guy and my T-shirt is huge. It cannot be tossed more than 6 feet,” he estimated of the height. The shirt wrapped around the propeller of the drone, causing it to drop to the sand.

Lehecka said he considered the situation resolved at that point.

About 10 minutes later, he was met by sheriff’s deputies. They arrested Lehecka on one count of felony vandalism and booked him into Vista jail.

He spent around eight hours behind bars before posting $10,000 bail, said Lehecka, who remained shaken by his experience days later.

Turns out, the operator works for a drone company. The pilot could not be reached for an interview and a company representative did not return a reporters’ phone call.

In an interview with NBC 7, the pilot, who asked to not be named, said he was flying at a safe distance above the crowd and not invading anyone’s privacy. He said the damage came to about $750.

The District Attorney’s Office on Tuesday declined to press charges against Lehecka in the incident, an office spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Lehecka said the use of drones in such public places is alarming, especially since many drones can be operated via the Internet, from the other side of the world.

“What if they fly into a crowd of people?” he asked. “Where’s the accountability?”

He said he and a friend were buzzed by a drone just the day before in the Del Mar area, sparking a conversation at the time about the legality and safety of such activity.

Government officials have been scrambling to respond to the growing popularity of drones now that they are so accessible to the general public. Commercial drone traffic is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Authorities are pushing for legislation to ban drone flights near active wildfires, a growing concern. And NASA is testing an air traffic control system for drones.

Hobbyist operators are encouraged to follow safety guidelines that include flying no higher than 400 feet, staying away from other aircraft and airports, and keeping the drone within sight.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/19/man-jailed-beach-drone-confrontation/

California’s Drone Trespass Law Goes Too Far

Posted on by mecicon

California legislators are looking to tackle the perceived problem of drone trespasses with a modified version of a bill that was introduced earlier this year.  Unfortunately they’ve gone too far in the most recent version of the proposed legislation.

This bill was originally a privacy bill, and it was innovative when it was first introduced.  Because it was originally very narrowly tailored and focused on prohibiting trespasses in circumstances where a drone operator was violating a landowner’s expectation of privacy, it struck an appropriate balance between innovation and rights.  The bill was narrow and careful in that it required plaintiffs to prove a series of elements to make their case.  Requiring multiple elements of proof is important as it protects rights and guards against frivolous litigation.

 

Here is some of the original language from the preamble of the legislation when it was proposed earlier this year:

Existing law imposes liability for physical invasion of privacy, if a person knowingly enters onto the land of another without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any image or recording of the plaintiff engaging in a private activity and the invasion is offensive to a reasonable person. (my emphasis in bold)

The key here is that the original bill created a cause of action only when someone was trespassing for a very specific purpose — to violate one’s privacy. The bill did this by modifying California’s existing physical invasion of privacy law. If the bill had stayed as proposed, to prove a violation would require a plaintiff to prove not only that the drone entered the airspace above a person’s property without their permission, but also all of the following things:

  1. The operator knowingly violated the landowner’s rights, and
  2. The operator captured any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff, and
  3. That image or recording of the plaintiff showed them “engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity”, and
  4. The invasion of privacy was “in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.”

That’s a pretty sensible approach focused on privacy harms. All four elements have to be proven, which means we won’t see spurious or vexatious litigation because the bar to litigation is high enough that someone isn’t going to sue unless their privacy was truly violated. It also serves to protect First Amendment rights because it is narrowly tailored to address privacy harms, rather than being a broad ban on aerial imaging or the mere act of flying.

But those protections are no longer in the bill. Now, the proposed legislation makes it a trespass if a drone merely flies below 350 feet altitude above someone’s property. There’s no need to prove that the operator knowingly did so, there’s no need to prove that any privacy harm occurred, or that any image or video was gathered, and there’s no requirement that reasonable people find the action offensive.

Taking those proof elements out creates a piece of legislation that effectively prohibits overflights, without any showing that any harm has occurred. This is not a smart approach as it may seriously stifle innovation and countless legitimate uses of drones ranging from journalism, to real estate photography, to power line and utility inspections.

I also wonder whether 350 feet is the right altitude. We all recognize that landowners have some right to exclude aerial trespasses. For example, a local jurisdiction could certainty pass a law prohibiting a drone from hovering at 5 feet above your back porch. How far above 5 feet does that right extend? It’s unclear, but the Supreme Court in the famous Causby case told us that ”if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.” Unfortunately that still doesn’t tell us very much other than that there is some limit on the landowner’s rights when the airspace is not within “the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.”

In a white paper published last year, I focused on law enforcement drones and suggested that providing land owners with a 350 foot exclusionary zone above their property might be a way to provide them with greater privacy rights. But, by the time SB 142 was before the California Senate Judiciary Committee I had a sense that 350 feet was too high, and I suggested to committee members that the limit should probably be lower — likely 200 feet. (I’m in the process of updating a longer forthcoming version of that paper to reflect my evolving views, lowering my proposed limit from 350 feet to 200 feet).

Why 200 feet? The rationale is pretty straightforward, the FAA has long required that obstacles exceeding a height of 200 feet be marked and lighted. This regulatory approach has mostly ignored obstacles below 200 feet, leaving most of those issues to state and local land use laws. If the proposed California law is to withstand a preemption challenge, it will likely need to steer clear of areas where the Federal government has traditionally regulated — in this instance that means keeping the focus on airspace below 200 feet. Now drones aren’t obstacles, but the reference point is an important one as it suggests there is some airspace that the FAA has (with limited exceptions) not exclusively regulated.

We’re already seeing industry starting to propose 200 feet as the sensible limit. The graphic below illustrates Amazon’s plan, which features a high speed drone transit zone from 200-400 feet and an area below 200 feet that is for localized traffic. It’s a pretty good proposal, although one question is whether they are seeking to exclude certain types of drones from the 200-400 foot high speed corridor, which may unnecessarily limit non-delivery applications.
Amazon proposed a segregated airspace below 500 feet for the operation of drones on Tuesday. (Photo: Amazon.com)

Amazon proposed a segregated airspace below 500 feet for the operation of drones on Tuesday. (Photo: Amazon.com)

Irrespective of the specific merits of the overall Amazon proposal, it suggests that industry is trending towards recognizing 200 feet, not 350 feet as the altitude that makes sense for a dividing line between state and local control of drones and federal rules for drones. That is to say, the airspace above 200 feet may be the exclusive domain of the federal government and the airspace below 200 feet may be the domain of local control and perhaps may be the ceiling of property rights.

Which brings us back to California’s “drone trespass” bill. I think the proposed legislation by reaching to 350 feet reaches too high, excluding overflights in an area where technology needs space to operate and develop. We can’t predict what will come in the future, and we need to be careful to not overly limit technology while in its infancy, so that means we have to be very cautious in how we legislate. It’s also important to recognize that from a legal perspective 350 feet is far more likely to fall in a preemption challenge, meaning the law will be likely short lived if signed by the governor as is.

None of this is to fault the legislators, this is an unsettled area of law with rapidly evolving technology. Getting the altitude limit wrong is understandable — I made the mistake myself, thinking that 350 feet was the right altitude as it would provide a 150 foot transit zone for the safe operation of drones. I now think that’s too restrictive —stifling innovation and free use of this technology, without providing any real benefits to persons on the ground. The fact that well intentioned people can get this wrong, suggests that many more informed parties need to be involved in the process of creating sensible legislation.

Having more parties at the table when making rules is something that has already begun through the U.S. Department of Commerce’s multi-stakeholder process regarding drone privacy. I had the privilege of speaking at the first multi-stakeholder meeting and I found that there’s a great deal that can be learned by having the right people in the room — especially when it comes to balancing privacy with innovation and individual rights. Which is why the California bill is frustrating from a privacy perspective. Taking away important protections that prevent unnecessary litigation doesn’t serve anyone. It creates a circumstance where people are more inclined to sue even where there is no proof of harm.

It’s admittedly hard work to craft a law regarding drones that balances the rights and concerns of property owners with the rights of operators and the desire for technological innovation. If the legislature wants to create a bill that will work, they should focus on preventing harms that aren’t already addressed by existing law, reinserting the deleted elements of proof of a privacy harm that were in the original bill and served as an important limit on vexatious litigation, and modifying the landowner’s airspace right to a more defensible maximum of 200 feet.

Gregory S. McNeal is a professor at Pepperdine University and co-founder of AirMap. SIGN UP for his weekly email update here. Follow him on Twitter or Facebook.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2015/08/11/californias-drone-trespass-bill-goes-too-far/

Drones give law enforcement a new edge, but raise concerns

Posted on by mecicon

thomasjones

Michaelle Bond, Inquirer Staff Writer

As the camera attached to its underbelly snapped pictures, the drone glided a few hundred feet above the quiet, tree-lined suburban streets of North Coventry Township.

It was tracing the path of a killer, investigators say.

Chester County prosecutors are hoping the images captured by the unmanned device, driven by four propellers and weighing less than a half-gallon of milk, will help prove that a man arrested last month carefully planned his fatal attack on a rival who was involved with his ex-girlfriend.

As an alternative to costly helicopter reconnaissance flights, the county says, the craft that it bought last fall for $1,800 is saving taxpayers thousands of dollars.

Drones such as this one are becoming ever more popular across the nation for investigative and other purposes, with industry officials projecting that 20,000 will be purchased annually by public-safety agencies by 2025.

They also have stoked privacy concerns.

So far, 26 states have enacted drone-related privacy laws, and all but a handful of states have at least considered such laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The New Jersey Assembly overwhelmingly passed a tough drone-related privacy-protection law in May that awaits Senate action.

On Friday, Pennsylvania state Sen. Mike Folmer (R., Lebanon) introduced a bill that would ban government agencies from flying drones without a warrant, except in emergencies, for two years to give lawmakers time to catch up.

“My concern is technology is growing faster than our ability to make sure people’s constitutional rights are being protected,” Folmer.

In Chester County three police departments, in Upper Uwchlan and New Garden Townships and Phoenixville Borough, either have or plan to buy drones for search-and-rescue, arson, and accident investigations.

Nationwide, 609 government agencies – including those involved in law enforcement, firefighting, border patrol, military training, disaster relief, and search and rescue – received permission from the Federal Aviation Administration last year to use unmanned aircraft systems, compared with 423 in 2013, and 146 in 2009.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police has recommended guidelines for law enforcement agencies using unmanned aircraft.

East Goshen Township passed an ordinance to restrict drone use in March.

The Philadelphia Police Department does not use nor plans to use drones in the near future, a spokesperson said. The New Jersey State Police and county prosecutors’ offices in the region were unaware of any police agencies using drones.

Police officials say the devices can keep officers out of dangerous situations and cover more ground quickly – say, in the case of a missing child or an armed suspect on the run, especially in rural areas.

Chester County officials said they will use drones for specific missions, not everyday surveillance, and have safeguards in place, such as requiring that supervisors sign off on any use of the aircraft.

In the case of the man accused of killing a rival, prosecutors plan to use drone images to build a court exhibit showing the defendant’s comings and goings before and after the crime.

Drones have been associated with military uses, and thus have stoked fears that government agencies will use them to spy on private lives.

County officials are reluctant even to use the word “drone,” preferring to call their aircraft a “quadcopter.”

” ‘Drone’ has a lot of connotations behind it,” said Terence Farrell, chair of the county commissioners. “This is used strictly to help people. Drones sometimes are not.”

The Upper Uwchlan Township Police Department has been using the drone it bought earlier this year to search for fugitives, to monitor traffic, and to take aerial photographs of motor-vehicle accidents.

“The problem with drones isn’t that there aren’t beneficial uses for them,” said Chad Marlow, advocacy and policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “There are potentials for abuses if police use these stealthy machines to run around warrant requirements.”

Like wiretapping equipment or any other police gear, the technology can be misused, police acknowledge.

The New Garden and Phoenixville police have asked the FAA for permission to fly drones, and departments are drafting policies to govern their use.

John DeMarco, Upper Uwchlan police chief, said that, so far, residents have not expressed concerns.

The Phoenixville Borough Council is not convinced that its police department needs a drone or the threat of liability it could bring, said Chris Bauers, a councilman.

Last month the council told its solicitor to review the police department’s policies on drones before members decide whether to allow officers to proceed.

Officers expect a decision within the next couple of months and remain hopeful that their policies will satisfy residents.

“To get the community behind us and to get them to trust us,” Chief William Mossman said, “we’re going to have to limit ourselves.”
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150810_Drones_give_law_enforcement_a_new_edge__but_raise_concerns.html#rvwkjfvKgiKr8bQ6.99

A battlefield of drones and privacy in your backyard

Posted on by mecicon

http://timesofoman.com/article/64855/Opinion/Columnist/Need-for-regulations-as-use-of-civilian-drone-to-tape-peoples-activities-sparks-privacy-concerns

You may have caught the story last week about the Kentucky man who was arrested after shooting down a drone in his backyard. William Merideth said that the vehicle was hovering over his teenage daughter, who was resting. Whatever your views on private ownership of firearms (to say nothing of their discharge for this purpose), the case reminds us that the increasing private use of unmanned aircraft raises yet-unresolved questions about privacy.

Civilian drones have been shot down before. Other means, too, have been employed against them. In June, firefighters used a hose to blast a drone that was recording a house fire. After the Los Angeles Kings won the Stanley Cup in 2014, ecstatic fans used a T-shirt to knock a drone from the sky (I’m still trying to picture this), then continued their celebration by pounding it with a skateboard. Evidently, few of us are comfortable at the thought that another person might be watching from above.

Certainly Merideth didn’t like the idea. “It was hovering,” he told Ars Technica. “I would never have shot it if it was flying. When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that’s not going to work. I know they’re neat little vehicles, but one of those uses shouldn’t be flying into people’s yards and videotaping.”

Most of us would worry about other people using technology to peek in our windows or hover over our yards. But mounting concerns about drones and privacy have so far received little official response, as government agencies have instead prioritised their own operations.

So have the many companies eagerly awaiting the opportunity to exploit drone technology. The Federal Aviation Administration has estimated that by 2030, there will be more than 30,000 private unmanned vehicles competing for US airspace. As it happens, NASA last week hosted the initial Unmanned Aerial Systems Traffic Management Convention in Mountain View, California. In remarks to the meeting, Gur Kimchi, vice president of Amazon Prime Air, proposed dividing Class G airspace — that is, the space below 500 feet, the usual beginning of navigable airspace — into three zones. From the ground up to 200 feet would be reserved for hobbyists, 200 to 400 feet would constitute a high-speed zone for commercial use, and the space between 400 and 500 feet would remain a buffer, as now.

Notice that this division would not solve the problem of drones hovering over presumably private spaces in backyards — the concern that led Merideth to take up arms. Nor is the FAA, which regulates the nation’s airspace, likely to be of much assistance. Under the FAA Modernisation and Reform Act of 2012, the agency is required to issue regulations for private drone use. The rules, now expected in 2016, will likely to be generous to both commercial operators and hobbyists.

But the FAA’s proposed regulations deal with such matters as the qualifications for operators and the precise systems for keeping track of the unmanned vehicles in flight. Although the agency “notes that privacy concerns have been raised about unmanned aircraft operation,” it hastens to add that the privacy question is “beyond the scope of the rulemaking.” Not to worry, though. The FAA assures us that there’s a “multi-stakeholder engagement process” for that.

In other words, the FAA plans to kick the privacy issue down the road, licensing the use of drones without regard to sunbathing teenagers, or others who might just want to be left alone. The agency suggests that the privacy question be determined under state law.

But nobody knows where state law stands. Some argue that low-flying drones are trespassers. A telephone wire strung across my property without consent violates my property rights. Why not an aircraft? From the late 16th century, the common law took the position that property ownership extended infinitely into the heavens. The era of aviation put an end to that maxim. Ever since the US Supreme Court’s 1946 decision in US v. Causby, it has been generally accepted that the property rights of a homeowner end 83 feet above the ground. That’s awfully close to the ground. Never mind peeking in apartment windows; recording high definition video from 100 feet up doesn’t present any sort of challenge.

The legal scholar Gregory McNeal, in a 2014 paper issued by the Brookings Institution, proposes that property owners be granted control of the airspace up to 350 feet. This would mean that I would be entitled to exclude any drones, whether public or private, from passing over my property below that altitude. “The problem is not the technology,” he writes. “The problem is the ability of landowners to exclude aerial observations from certain vantage points.”

How does McNeal come up with the number 350? Current law generally defines navigable airspace as beginning at 500 feet. The FAA requires model aircraft, including drones, to remain below 400 feet, to create a 100-foot buffer. McNeal argues that the rest of us deserve a buffer, too, for privacy purposes.

His proposal would mean of course that all drones, commercial or noncommercial, would have to squeeze into just 50 feet of airspace. Things will get awfully crowded up there, creating a situation very much the opposite of the high-speed lane envisioned by Amazon for product deliveries. I’m all for technology, but I’m also all for privacy. Maybe McNeal has the altitude wrong. Nevertheless, respect for privacy demands a sensible buffer. If our right to be left alone ends at 83 feet up — the height of an eight-story building — we’ll be inviting a lot more people to take the law into their own hands. – Bloomberg View

Stephen Carter is a Bloomberg View columnist and a law professor at Yale

Updated information: