

Seattle Man Hovers Drone Over a Family’s House for ‘Research’ - 1337biz
http://betabeat.com/2013/05/seattle-man-hovers-drone-over-a-familys-house-for-research/

======
jstalin
Police can legally do this without a warrant.

In Florida v. Riley, from the US Supreme court, it was ruled that police did
not need a warrant to hover over someone's house with a helicopter to peer
into the roof of a greenhouse to check for marijuana.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley>

~~~
tptacek
The police can do a lot of things without a warrant that you and I shouldn't
and often can't do. For instance: they can pull your car over and then shine a
flashlight through the windows to inspect what's visible in plain sight in the
passenger compartment.

~~~
freehunter
They can pull your car over with cause, yes. This is something we cannot do.
However, it's not illegal for you or I to view the contents of someone's car,
even with a flashlight. If it's in plain sight, it's perfectly legal.

There's a lot that maybe we shouldn't do but is completely legal anyway.

~~~
crosvenir
Does it matter that they may go to jail when you've had your ass kicked or
worse[1] (personal friend). Crazy is everywhere and you don't really know when
it's going to pop up.

[1] <http://brandonhydrick.com/brandons-death/>

~~~
freehunter
While your friend's death is tragic, like you said crazy is everywhere and you
don't really know when it's going to pop up. From the sounds of it, your
friend did nothing to purposefully agitate his attacker and had no way of
predicting the possible outcome. From that point of view, you may as well
argue that you shouldn't merge lanes on the highway if someone is in sight of
you, because that could set them off.

Yeah, it's possible to predict a poor outcome from something like this. It's
possible to predict a poor outcome from anything. It all depends on how much
fear you want to live with.

------
aaronbrethorst
I'm very happy to see the Capitol Hill Seattle blog[1] get a nod in this
article. Justin, the creator, has been doing a fantastic job of reporting on
news that's relevant to Capitol Hill for several years, now, and he's also
proving that 'hyperlocal' news _can_ actually work under certain
circumstances.

Justin's reporting lacks the hyperbolic nature of TV news, and keeps me on top
of things that are actually relevant to me. Plus, he's just a stand-up guy.

edit: crap, CHS is down. I wonder if that's my fault, or the Atlantic and
BetaBeat articles. Here's a cached version from yesterday:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:P3SuMBN...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:P3SuMBN6H0cJ:www.capitolhillseattle.com/+capitolhillseattle&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

[1] <http://www.capitolhillseattle.com>

~~~
devindotcom
Great blog, good guy. Community is involved too. He's pretty dedicated,
though, not sure you could get the same effect with a nationwide network of
stringers.

I'm on the lookout for this drone guy, btw.

------
will_brown
I would argue this at least creates a cause of action (civil law
claim/lawsuit) for Nuisance, for disrupting one's right of private enjoyment
of their property. Such a argument might lose and I am not aware of any
criminal charge on point, in which case the defacto remedy...flying drones
over this guys house 24/7 until he agrees (in writing) to no longer fly his
drones over/near private properties.

------
incision
_> The man told him that he was doing “research” and the camera was
transmitting the images to his glasses._

Sounds like some pretty irresponsible "research".

Even if the _intent_ is utterly benign, it's pretty easy to see how this could
end badly. I'd say drone-man lucked out if this is how it all went down.

~~~
madaxe
Unless of course his intent was to draw attention to the fact that this is
going to become a major problem, and soon, due to the absence of regulation
around drone airspace, in which case, success!

~~~
thesis
Success? Sounds like a good way to get in trouble in more ways than one. I
don't think I would have been as gracious as "ok I'm going to go call the
police".

Even if he was trying to bring the issue to light... there has got to be
better ways then potentially getting your ass kicked by strangers.

~~~
freehunter
And if flying the drone is legal, you would have been taken to jail for
assault, thereby turning the man into a martyr. You can't kick someone's ass
out of the blue for doing something that's perfectly legal to do.

~~~
mbillie1
You could always compromise the drone via a hose or some such, without any
physical confrontation with the owner.

------
sharkweek
I have one of those drones -- and I also live in Seattle. I mostly just fly it
in public parks where most people think it's pretty cool. I can completely
understand why people think it's creepy though, and definitely foresee
municipal law challenging airspace rights.

People in the area are pretty sensitive to the concept especially considering
the local police department's recent effort to use patrol drones (the program
was recently cancelled).

~~~
tocomment
How much does it cost? What's the battery life?

~~~
sharkweek
They run about 300 bucks -- the stock battery will last about 15-20 minutes of
fly time, but you can upgrade that pretty easily

~~~
tocomment
Thanks. I guess I should have also asked where to buy one?

~~~
sharkweek
got mine off Amazon - [http://www.amazon.com/Parrot-AR-Drone-Quadricopter-
Controlle...](http://www.amazon.com/Parrot-AR-Drone-Quadricopter-Controlled-
Android/dp/B007HZLLOK/)

Here's a picture of my coworkers inside the office that I flew up to scope out
-- <http://i.imgur.com/sSpxQAL.jpg>

------
a3n
I imagine a full-on garden hose would bring the thing down or interfere with
it. Of course you have to see it first, but if it's there over your property
you'd have an educational court adventure in your near future.

~~~
Zimahl
I can see it now: automated water cannons on top of every house as anti-
aircraft/drone! Safe for wildlife (birds) but not for electronics. Then,
waterproofed drones. Followed by silly-string cannons to gum up any rotors.
Where will it end?

~~~
mseebach
It's not the water that's the problem, it's the force of the impact. Quad-
copters are very lightweight, they'd easily be thrown wildly off balance by a
good burst of water.

~~~
dangrossman
You underestimate quadcopter AI's ability to correct for experienced forces!

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyGJBV1xnJI>

------
pyre
Sounds sort of like the Creepy Cameraman[1], also from Seattle. I wonder if
they are related. Both instances seem like they could have the aim of making a
point/raising an issue.

[1] [http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/10/31/who-is-
seatt...](http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/10/31/who-is-seattles-
creepy-cameraman/)

------
taneliv
"Air is a public highway" Supreme Court ruled in 1946. Maybe it is time to
consider a minimum altitude, which must be obeyed outside public areas?
Something like 300 or 1000 feet depending on local conditions (building
height, terrain etc). Would that make sense?

------
ChuckMcM
This stranger seems to have achieved his objective of demonstrating a
capability and pushing the conversation about drones along.

The home owner could have dones his part by destroying the drone (I'd prefer a
shotgun but if it really was that close simply shooting a net at it would have
worked) such that the "researcher" would suffer a property loss which could
then give him action to sue.

Then we could have the whole thing walk through the court system and draw out
the folks who are pushing behind the scenes because they would not want case
law on the books that made done use over private property ruled illegal or
property owners destroying drones over their property ruled legal.

------
Jun8
So, if the couple had shot down the drone (by a gun with a legal permit, or
some other means, e.g. slingshot or a counter drone) would the creepy man be
able to press charges?

~~~
emillerm
Better yet, hack the drone's controls and send it after its owner :P

------
cobrausn
_The man told him that he was doing “research” and the camera was transmitting
the images to his glasses._

I find myself unsurprised that this guy was probably wearing Google Glasses...

~~~
shabble
FPV[1] flight controls have been around a lot longer than Google Glass.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Person_View>

------
matt-attack
So is "drone" the new word for RC plane/helicopter?

~~~
alan_cx
Look, I build these things as a hobby. I am not a hysterical nay sayer.
But..........

Firstly, planes and helicopters are a lot harder to fly. So there is a skill
barrier that puts most people off.

Secondly, these drones are very stable. Couple that with now cheap HD
corrected cameras, and any one can literally spy right in to your daughter's
bed room.

And this is the real shit of life right now. Almost everything fun and cool is
also threat to privacy and freedom, as much as it protects privacy and
freedom.

The game has changed. Even a year ago my drones were "cool". People loved to
see them and we fascinated by them. Today, they fear them, they are suspicious
of them, and now my motives get questioned.

------
danso
This immediately brought to mind the story by Heinlein in which an argument is
made that several world countries "own" the moon, since land rights should be
extended from Earth ground level into the heavens:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon>

> _Harriman seeks to avoid government ownership of the Moon. As it passes
> directly overhead only in a narrow band north and south of the equator, he
> uses a legal principle that states that property rights extend to infinity
> above a land parcel. On that basis, Mexico, Central and parts of South
> America, and other countries in those latitudes around the world, have a
> claim on the Moon. The United States also has a claim due to Florida and
> Texas. By arranging for many countries to assert their rights Harriman
> persuades the United Nations to, as a compromise, assign management of the
> Moon to his company._

~~~
uptown
You mean those moon plots that have been sold on radio and late-night TV for
decades on TV weren't real?

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/the-man-who-
sells-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/the-man-who-sells-the-
moon.html?_r=0)

------
saraid216
How is this particular incident a legal grey area? It should be covered under
peeping Tom laws. Does WA state not have these?

ETA: Did some more research and found a claim that only nine states have
peeping Tom laws. Am surprised.

------
thesis
My paintball gun would have been put to good use in this instance.

~~~
freehunter
Destruction of personal property?

~~~
pyre
Who says he would be shooting at the drone? :P

------
alan_cx
My once fun hobby is now creepy :(

------
ComputerGuru
Completely copy and paste blog spam. Original story:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/so-
thi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/so-this-is-how-
it-begins-guy-refuses-to-stop-drone-spying-on-seattle-woman/275769/)

EDIT: Yes, downvote me to oblivion because I pointed out this post is in
blatant violation of HN rules:

 _Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they
found on another site, submit the latter._

The content is _exactly_ the same as _The Atlantic_ article. The Atlantic is
not where the incident was first reported, but it is the source of all the
legal analysis and commentary on the issue.

~~~
sharkweek
Well if we're playing that game; a local Seattle blog reported it first:
[http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2013/05/chs-x-files-
capito...](http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2013/05/chs-x-files-capitol-hill-
drone-pilot-spotted-glowing-orbs-phone-thief-on-wheels/)

