You Can’t Shoot a Drone, So What Can You Do If It Invades Your Privacy?

(Source: networkworld.com)  

The verdict of the first known lawsuit involving the use of a firearm against a civilian’s unmanned aerial vehicle – UAV, or, as most refer to it, drone – was made public this week, potentially setting a precedent for these kinds of cases. It looks like you pretty much can’t shoot somebody else’s drone out of the sky in public.

Motherboard spoke with Eric Joe, the owner of the hexacopter that his neighbor shot down with a shotgun last November. Now that the details of the case are available, it seems like a pretty open-and-shut case. The drone was still flying over Joe’s family’s property when his neighbor shot it down, and the neighbor admitted both in person and via email to having shot the drone down, but declined to pay what Joe claimed the damage was worth. The judge ruled in favor of Joe and awarded him $850 in damages, and while the Motherboard article says criminal charges are still pending, it warns that the FAA’s official definition of drones as “aircraft” means that shooting at one could, technically speaking, mean a maximum penalty of a 20-year prison sentence. An attorney with a law firm that Motherboard says “has more experience in drone law than anyone else in the country” said that this case might set a legal precedent going forward:

“Even though it’s from small claims court, it supports the proposition that destruction of someone’s property is not an appropriate way to respond to the presence of a drone,” Brendan Schulman, an attorney at Kramer Levin, told Motherboard. “Even if a drone is causing a nuisance, potentially invading privacy, creating a hazard, or violating some other law, the appropriate way to respond is to call the authorities, not to take self-help measures involving firearms. Notably, the verdict states that the discharge of the firearm was unreasonable regardless of whether the drone was being flown over the shooter’s property. I think this case is more about the response to the drone operation than it is an indication of what laws apply to the operation of the drone itself.”

In the emails between the two parties in the case, the defendant expressed concerns for his privacy and referred to the drone as “surveillance equipment.” It turns out that his neighbor’s drone wasn’t even equipped with a camera. And even if it was, it was still operating on his own property, so this case is not really a good example of the implications of UAVs on privacy rights.

But there have been cases in which camera-equipped drones have been used to invade other peoples’ privacy. So, if you encounter a legitimate issue with a UAV and are reasonable enough to refrain from recklessly shooting a gun in the air, what can you do?

Continue Reading at networkworld.com…