
Man Flies Drone Near Seattle Residence - ColinWright
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/so-this-is-how-it-begins-guy-refuses-to-stop-drone-spying-on-seattle-woman/275769/
======
asynchronous13
There's simply not enough information in this story to tell what really
happened. It could be a peeping tom who got busted. Or it could be a guy
flying his new radio-controlled toy at the local park (they mention being next
to Miller Playfield).

And there's conflicting information -- the guy refused to stop flying, but the
police wouldn't come because he left? That kinda sounds like he stopped
flying. These things have a max battery time of 20 minutes, and 10-12 minutes
is more typical. It doesn't sound like it was an extended confrontation.

~~~
sosuke
The premise in the title seems be pulled out of thin air after actually
reading the piece. You're right there just wasn't enough information to say
anything either way.

~~~
evo_9
So you would be ok with someone doing this at your home?

I'm asking both of you this question.

I think there is plenty in the story to know that this behavior is asking for
trouble. Where I'm from this would not have resulted in a friendly chat with
the fellow on the street.

~~~
rhizome
What "behavior" are you talking about, and did it actually occur?

~~~
evo_9
Yeah you are right, nothing odd about this behavior (of flying a drone near
someones house without permission and then claiming you are doing research).

In fact, if anyone wants to try similar research at my home, please email me,
I would love to film my response. :)

Imagine 4-5 V for Vindetta mask wearing hockey players approaching you quickly
and aggressively to get an idea of what would happen. I'll be the guy on the
porch filming and laughing.

~~~
rhizome
So is it at all possible to fly a drone "near someone's house" without
permission for research purposes, or does it all simply deserve a beatdown?

------
cl8ton
I'm all for free air space for personal drones however; I have fishing net
that can be fired from a potato gun.

Any drone flying that close will be captured and re-purposed for my personal
pleasure.

~~~
uncoder0
Good thing all my drones self-destruct when captured and release clouds of
toxic gas. /s

Wouldn't this be considered theft?

~~~
dpedu
Or property damage

~~~
mbillie1
Hmm... if you knock down the drone, then it is no longer in public space
though (assuming it lands in your property). I have no idea what laws there
are around this sort of thing... but disabling without destroying the drone so
it ends up on my property - what then? The owner would be (conceivably)
trespassing should he or she attempt to recover the drone.

------
jack-r-abbit
This has a couple different issues involved. Property rights to the air above
you and privacy rights. It seems the court agrees that the air above you is a
public space. For privacy rights, it uses the example of leaning a ladder
against your neighbor's house to spy into it. So it claims that hovering the
UAV just outside their window is also a privacy violation. But what about
hovering it just outside the window but my side of the fence? What about using
a telescope from inside my house to spy into their house? Or standing on the
public sidewalk to spy into their house? Does a "peeping tom" need to be on
your property to still get in trouble? And if he sees you undressing is it
worse than if all he sees is you eating dinner? What about looking into their
backyard from my second story balcony? or into their house?

The only complication that the drone adds is that is provides you additional
vantage points that you didn't have before. But if the air above you is public
space, the same rules should probably apply as if you were standing on the
sidewalk.

~~~
slg
I think your logic applies to almost every use of drones. Whether it is our
government killing enemy combatants, our local police monitoring speeding, or
our slightly creepy neighbor doing who knows what, they aren't exactly new
issues. Governments have always killed, police always caught speeders, and
neighbor were always slightly creepy. The only difference is that drones allow
them to do these things quicker, more efficiently, cheaper, and with less
risk. Therefore I don't really think we need new laws in place, we just need
to be more mindful of the laws we already have in place.

------
ChuckMcM
We talked about this yesterday [1] as well when the link to Betabeat's
similarly non-coverage coverage came out. The Atlantic adds commentary from
John Villasenor (who actually has some interesting things to say [2]) but the
Atlantic didn't actually do much more than quote nearly the entire blog
component from the Capitol Hill Seattle blog.

And I'll repeat briefly what I wrote which is if someone (ideally not law
enforcement) flies a drone with a camera over your property please disable it,
or destroy it, if possible, so that a legal case can be started on it. There
are conflicting laws here and a nice example case would do wonders for
bringing out the arguments for and against.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5712423>

[2] [http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/36_2_...](http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/36_2_457_Villasenor.pdf)

~~~
asynchronous13
wow, John Villasenor's article is excellent. Thanks for the link!

------
johngalt
Thousands of drones flown by enthusiasts to learn about robotics > one idiot
who doesn't know how to be a good neighbor. I'd hate to see a burgeoning field
shut down because of a paranoid response.

If someone were flying a drone uncomfortably close to my house/window I'd just
turn my hose on it.

------
alan_cx
Kinda concerned that a lot of replies here are all about destroying some
potentially innocent hobbyist's property. Why the sudden macho destructive
reaction? These drones are classic hacker territory, yet there is some quite
disproportionate reaction.

Right now, we have no idea what was in the "pilot's" mind, to suddenly assume
its some thing suspicious smacks of paranoia. The then start on about
attacking and destroying the "toy" is absurd.

Did any one care when people used RC helicopters in the same way?

I think that partly the word "drone" has become a scary word because of its
association with government evil doing.

~~~
justin66
> Did any one care when people used RC helicopters in the same way?

Interestingly, the incentives have changed. A camera-rigged RC helicopter used
to be expensive. Flying without permission and risking collision or the wrath
of a property owner had a greater potential penalty.

Also, there was a larger barrier to entry for the hobby. Different sort of
people...

> These drones are classic hacker territory

Part of the problem here: the AOLers have arrived.

------
gnoway
This references a supreme court decision from 1946. It's hard to imagine that
the court was trying to protect this behavior, my guess is that they were
addressing the issue of whether a property owner had rights to control air
travel over their property.

Likewise, it's almost inconceivable that there are not guidelines covering
minimum cruise height or similar. You can't just go buzzing everyone's house
with your private ultralight, can you? If not, I expect the same guidelines
should apply to your United Twerpists dodecacopter(tm) drone.

~~~
asynchronous13
You're right that the earlier decision was more related to air travel. The
precedent that was set is that a property owner can only claim air space up to
a height that is actively used by the property owner. So if you have a
windmill, for example, you can claim the airspace to a greater height than
your neighbor with only a trampoline.

FAA defines minimum heights manned aircraft, usually 1000ft above the tallest
obstacle when flying near a city (helicopters are exempt from this rule,
though). FAA also defines rules for radio-controlled aircraft. Namely, small
r/c aircraft _must_ fly below 400ft and within line-of-sight of the pilot.

------
ValentineC
Maybe the person has the same business idea as Black Hat:
<http://xkcd.com/1207/>

------
leot
One thing to do is to take a picture/video of the guy doing it and post it
publicly. Fight fire with fire, as it were.

------
betterunix
Let's just solve this technical problem with technology. Drones can be blinded
by bright lights or low-power lasers; we need a device that attempts to blind
drones when they are over a person's property. Of course, it is more likely
that such a device will be made illegal than that flying a drone will be made
illegal -- after all, what ever will the police do if drug dealers are
blinding surveillance drones?!

~~~
marshray
> Drones can be blinded by bright lights or low-power lasers

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Furthermore, so can people.

> we need a device that attempts to blind drones when they are over a person's
> property

It's probably easier to look into your own windows from your neighbor's
property.

Your plan does not sound particularly well thought-out to me.

~~~
betterunix
It is fairly well known that lasers can (temporarily) blind digital cameras,
even at power levels that are safe (i.e. your blink reflex can protect you).
You can try this at home if you have a laser pointer, though that is far more
powerful than you would need unless you want to do this at long distances
(hundreds of feet).

The real trick, however, is aiming:

<http://www.naimark.net/projects/zap/howto.html>

Aiming the laser at a moving target (like a drone) would probably be very
difficult, though not technically impossible. You would not necessarily need
to keep the laser fixed on the camera; a lot of rapid hits would be sufficient
to stop something casual, so something akin to a bar-code scanner might work.

Really, the biggest issue is with the fact that the laser would be pointed
upward. This could be dangerous if you live near an airport or if you use a
needlessly powerful laser. On of the other hand, drones are probably not going
to be spying on you from more than 50 feet away, so around 1mW would probably
be enough to protect a bedroom window.

"It's probably easier to look into your own windows from your neighbor's
property."

Yeah, but you can bet that if my neighbors had a camera pointed into my
window, I would be upset. Sure, I can draw my curtains, but why should I not
be able to both enjoy the sunlight _and_ not be recorded in my home?

~~~
marshray
Shouldn't your neighbors be able to open their eyes in their own backyard
without having to rely on their blink reflexes to protect their retinas from
burns from your anti-drone laser system?

~~~
betterunix
It is not as though the system is always-on, nor is the system pointed
downward. The point of the system is to activate when a drone is detected,
then shine a laser at the drone. Unless your neighbors are standing between
the laser and the drone, it's not even remotely dangerous to them. Even if
they were somehow struck, there is not reason for the laser to be powerful
enough to cause permanent damage _even at point-blank range_ , even with >1s
exposure. A typical laser pointer is _more_ powerful than what is needed to
blind a CCD at the distances we're talking about.

You are exposed to the sort of laser I am talking about whenever you go to a
supermarket. Yes, your blink reflex is protecting you from the laser when the
clerk puts down their barcode scanner at an odd angle.

There are other options, but they are probably more dangerous. Shooting drones
out of the sky? Crashing your own drone into the drone that is harassing you?
Laws that prohibit, regulate, or restrict civilian drone use? A laser can
blind a camera without causing any damage to anything, it can be automated,
and you can build safety measures in if you want to be extra-cautious.

~~~
marshray
> Unless your neighbors are standing between the laser and the drone, it's not
> even remotely dangerous to them. Even if they were somehow struck,

Like if, for example, the drone triggered your system and flew behind the
neighbors on purpose.

> there is not reason for the laser to be powerful enough to cause permanent
> damage [...] to blind a CCD at the distances we're talking about.

Please cite something in the scientific, engieneering, or hacker literature
showing this.

Because I think silicon detectors and solid state optics are a lot more
resilient (and easier to repair) than human retinas.

~~~
betterunix
"Please cite something in the scientific, engieneering, or hacker literature
showing this."

<http://www.naimark.net/projects/zap/howto.html>

Really, you can just try this yourself; it is entirely safe and causes no
permanent damage to anything. Take a handheld laser pointer and aim it at a
webcam from some distance (say, down a hallway). If you do not have a laser
pointer, take your camera of choice to the supermarket and point it at a
barcode scanner.

"Because I think silicon detectors and solid state optics are a lot more
resilient (and easier to repair) than human retinas."

Well I'm not going to recommend that you shine a laser into anyone's eyes, but
like I said, it is easy to see the effect a low-power laser has on a typical
CCD camera. In simple terms, what happens is that electrons "spill" into
neighboring pixels, which causes more "spilling" to occur (the technical term
is "blooming"). The more light the CCD receives, the worse this effect
becomes; lasers are an extreme case, since all of the energy is focused on a
very small area. There are technologies that reduce this effect, but it is all
relative: a cheap cell phone or webcam is easily blinded, whereas a decent
point and shoot will still capture at least some of the frame (but with a big
circle surrounding the laser dot).

As for power levels, I have done the above with a red laser pointer that emits
roughly 1mW. To my knowledge, there are no recorded cases of any permanent eye
damage from such a laser. There is a reason such devices are considered safe
even for _indoor_ use.

------
ck2
Just phone the cops and say he is spying on patrol cars.

I assure you that drone will never fly again.

Can you imagine someday soon when an army of "news drones" start following car
chases down the highway?

ps. this is a joke, do not lie to police, ever

------
Pirate-of-SV
Somehow I actually think this is an okey thing to do. Maybe it 's the child in
me that likes the idea of controlling an aircraft remotely and spying on
people/exploring the world. If a neighbor asks politely you should of course
spy from further distance or get a more silent motor.

------
babuskov
Dear fellow entrepreneurs, I'm disappointed nobody sees the business
opportunity here: with right marketing, demand for cheap, heat seeking or
optical recognition rockets could skyrocket (pun intended).

Home Defender™

 _Oops, my rocket launched from my backyard and accidentally hit your drone,
neighbor ;)_

------
conductr
If this guy, on the sidewalk, had a long pole with a camera on it would it be
illegal? In cases like this, I see the drone as a simple extension of self.
The technology seems to cloud that fact.

Also there are legal concepts of Air Rights and even airspace has its limits
(500 feet).

------
Luyt
Would it possible to build a jammer to jam the remote control signals and make
the drone crash? At what frequency do these things operate? Shouldn't be too
hard ;-)

~~~
alan_cx
Shouldn't be too hard to sue for criminal damage to the legal drone either. On
top of that, there would be liability for any damaged caused.

------
platz
as the article notes, you can achieve invasion of privacy by using a
stepladder and a camera; this should be no different.

------
guard-of-terra
Why not hire someone to shoot that with a shotgun?

On a third or fourth drone the guy is going to get the hint.

~~~
minimax
Beyond all the concerns about destroying other peoples property, discharging a
firearm in a residential area can carry pretty stiff penalties depending on
the local laws.

~~~
joezydeco
I wonder if fireworks are legal there. A couple of roman candles could work
nicely.

~~~
rocky1138
Hitting it with a roman candle would be difficult if it was moving. Better to
use a pellet or BB gun.

~~~
joezydeco
Well, there's no way I could hit a moving target with a projectile that small.
Maybe a gun pro could.

Fireworks would at least give me a chance.

