Many threats, indeed. It is going to be a tough battle. We cannot know the extent of our government's arsenal, however, they are not using there minds. If they were, they would realize the hopelessness of their actions. We will prevail. I only hope it is while I still breathe and am conscience of the world.

LOLOL

Damn good point

as a ham, I too wonder about jamming. -- j
.

Thanks John. Your comment makes me more eager to pursue the anti-drone technologies... definitely an eager market there. :-)

Thanks. Turning the tables, as you say, is the advantage that everyone has now with portable phones and cameras. People will need to be thoughtful enough to record what is happening for their own defense and protection. Also, we will have to learn (or relearn) how to talk to our neighbors! Maybe Amazon will give some "training" and guidance to their Amazon Air customers in that regard. In fact they are smart enough, they should be able to identify all nearby addresses for a customer and mail them a postcard notifying them that they will be seeing a drone flying in their neighborhood. That effort and expense will be a lot less than getting one of their drones shot out of the sky. I just discovered a little business opportunity I think...

BW and I have been together 19 years, now, and
that symptom is growing. . we try to be fresh and
creative ... oh, well!

when she finishes a sentence better than I would have,
I roll my eyes, trying to look like her! -- j
.

My grandfather was from Poland as well and also spoke several languages. I guess in those days you had to just to get along.

Speaking of eye-rolling, one of the disadvantages of living this long is when I tell a golden oldie, they not only roll their eyes, but finish sentences as well.

mom was an englishwoman, but I have great friends
from poland! . one, who speaks 6 languages, can
roll her eyes with the best of 'em! . the BW can add
spice to any conversation, while rolling her eyes! -- j
.

John
Was your mom from Poland?
Your repartee and sense of humor is so much like mine that we must be related. Your wife, like mine, is probably an expert at eye rolling.

Hello BrettRocketSci,
You are welcome. Yes, I think a conversation needs to be had with those that wish to operate such devices and common sense and consideration for your neighbors should be at the forefront. I believe existing laws that cover disturbing the peace and peeping tom laws should be sufficient, but I am willing to consider all concerns and arguments.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Dear K,
Fair enough. I am good with emergency vehicles going about their business and I am not a fan of amazon, but my Wife is. That said: unless it is an emergency, I am good with standard delivery. The neighbor's photo drones, if disturbing the peace or worse, deserve to be taken down, by whatever means you feel justified in. If I am out hunting and my prey is not dropped immediately and manages to run onto someone else's property before falling, I have no right to trespass and retrieve it. Likewise, if someone's drone falls on my property (regardless of reason) the owner will have no right to trespass on my property to retrieve it. I see no reason why personal drones should not be treated the same way radio controlled hobby planes have been in the past. Friends of mine with remote controlled planes and helicopters have to fly them in places where they do not disturb their neighbors. Common sense and consideration for others is what is necessary. I do not think we needed the federal government to require registration. If your neighbor is disturbing you with their antics, you should be able to use existing law to have them cited for disturbing the peace at a minimum, or applicable peeping tom laws. If someone can turn the tables on the voyeurs, video the offending drone in action over their property, blast it with a shotgun and bring it down, then I believe their own video evidence should indemnify them. A shotgun would most likely be the gun of choice for such a purpose and most rounds in a 12 gauge shotgun have an effective range of much less than 300 feet. Drones flying higher than that will be hard to take down unless hovering and a rifle in skilled hands is used.
How's that?
Regards,
O.A.

weevils? . such things need not disgrace our threshold,
sir -- ve hav vays to make you talk .. who put you up
to these shenanigans?! -- j
.

Just my luck, the laser will miss the drone, hit a 777. They'll hunt me down, throw me in a dungeon and feed me bread, water and weevles.
Or not.

In the words of the Wicked Witch of the West: "What a world!"

My sarcastic rant was mainly from the perspective of individual ownership. No doubt commercial endeavors will press forward as long as profitability can be achieved (here's a perfect example of capitalism at work). Commercial airlines are doing well even if they are support systems for various government alphabet soup pyramids. Same for the automotive industry. Personally, I'd like to see the drone industry flourish, but like the airline and automotive industries were able to do, I believe it will have to make a successful "presence" before the taxers and regulators can smother it. Poorly crafted legislation aimed at neighbor spying on neighbor can make it more difficult (expensive) to get a delivery drone off the ground.

Add to it: if a delivery drone lingers over any site along the flight path, the customer is not getting the delivery service he paid for. This harm comes in addition to the damage to the reputation of the company. I can't imagine Amazon or any other shipping company letting drone operators do that sort of thing, and not punishing them severely when they catch them at it.

My point is the context for a starting point is already developed. The idea that drones don't have the altitude of manned aerial vehicles, and separately are planning to land (more often) than helicopters for example, as invited by receivers of packages, begins as a problem for the "intrudor" on others, not a problem we have all involuntarily accepted.

If they can only fly 400-500 ft, ok. If they want to land regularly, ok. If they have less reliability and may drop on property or people, ok. All these intrusions are for the benefit of the operator and perhaps the clients of the operator, but are at the expense of others. If they fall, do naval rules for salvage apply?

Identical laws for government and private citizens and companies.

Agree. I have one, and have only flown it on my own property, or at a friends by invitation.

It was just the Allosaur back then. Totally agree, if people don't like the manned flight rules (which I haven't studied), those should be argued too. My original point was that this problem has already been visited and "solved", but people fail to apply common sense to the connection. The fact that drones can generally not reach the altitudes of manned aerial vehicles is not relevant to the problem. Particularly when 99% of the drones in question are manned, not autonomous.

Thanks for your thoughtful and referenced comment. Sure, we should be building and extending on existing laws and precedents. But technology is is changing at such a rate that we need to get smarter (and clearer) on the principles that the laws define and enforce. We have to imagine a world in which someone can fly a drone in a backyard but it can use a 50x or 100x zoom camera (or high powered directional microphone) to spy on the neighbors. There is inadmission of illegal evidence in court, but what about the people who operate outside of and above the law? Two separate questions... I have responses for both, but these are part of the debate we need to have.

Respectfully, the context for drones is significantly different. Manned aircraft are not trying to land on someone's front yard or back porch. But commercial delivery drones will be able to.
I think we need a ceiling of 400-500 ft, until the drone reaches the target area and then it descends vertically to it. It should respect property lines during the descent and later ascent after the delivery. There shouldn't be any reason to dilly-dally around or wander around into other people's property lines. If it works well, it will be too fast for anyone with a gun. But I expect there will be people that set up automatic anti-drone systems that will cause signal or control interference with the drones if they have nearby neighbors, so this is going to be an issue that gets the lawyers and insurance companies (and lawmakers) involved. That's my prediction.

You are correct. The proliferation of drones is already creating an anti-drone industry. It will get even bigger. I'm watching that market too. :-)

Thanks, these are very good distinctions and scenarios. But realistically, the observer can't tell if a drone has surveillance equipment on it or not. Or what type of surveillance. It could be visual, infrared, sound, cellular transmission... and this could be piggy-backed on a delivery drone.
What I expect and hope will happen is that there is a reasonable vertical height to respect property lines, say 400-500 feet. The drone will have to fly in this higher airspace corridor and then make a vertical descent to its landing pad or zone. There doesn't need to be any loitering or drifting around for other reasons, all of which would create suspicion that there are other things going on that shouldn't be. If the landing zone has obstructions the drone will have to abort the mission promptly and return to base.

Hi Felix. The only rights are for the individual, because we are human. If you are asking about the justification for privacy rights, that's better for a dedicated posting IMO. And it has probably already been made here in the Gulch...