Surveillance by a Drone; Prohibiting a person, a state agency, or a political subdivision from using a drone to capture an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance without his or her written consent if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists; authorizing the use of a drone by a person or entity engaged in a business or profession licensed by the state in certain circumstances, etc. - Passed May 14th, 2015

So the way I read this is you can no longer fly anywhere there is private property without opening yourself up to a lawsuit? I'm no lawyer but from the sounds of this, this is pretty bad for Florida quad owners.

The most important part is "with the intent to conduct surveillance". If you have no intent, then it looks like you're in the clear.

No...  Surveillance is defined as  the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting them. This can include observation from a distance by means of electronic equipment

The definition of monitor is observe and check the progress or quality of (something) over a period of time; keep under systematic review.

Flying over private property with an electronic device is not monitoring nor is it surveillance.  Now, repetitive video of the same thing is.   an then there's intent.  If you are intending to monitor private property then it will be a crime.  Flying over is not monitoring.

This sounds like bad news for us Floridians.

It's only bad news for those Floridians who are doing shady things with their Phantoms ;)

" Prohibiting a person, a state agency, or a political subdivision from using a drone to capture an image " Where does it say you can't fly drones, why are you misinterpreting this for the sake of drama, you should be a journalist.

Also a key point here that could be very easily argued if you ever got into trouble for any reason. The Phantom 3 is not a drone. It has no autonomous capability once it is over 10 feet besides RTH which is simply a last minute safety measure. It is a Quadcopter and by Florida using the word "drone" they are essentially exempting the P3 and other man flown rc aircraft from the new legislation.

I do also not read it all negative. The key is "intentional surveillance". In case you start your drone in order to make a movie of your property and e.g. this has more than 50% of the screen, everything should be fine. In case you go higher and cover many estates or the area you're living in... this can not be called surveillance. I act and interpret it quite the same regarding our law in Germany.

... sounds like protecting the individual and it's property against bad intentions.

Regards,
*Sven*

Hell, I just assumed that it has always been illegal to photograph anyone when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  (That's why you can't take a hand-held camera and shoot through a stranger's window.)

The activities described have been illegal since... well, probably soon after the camera was invented.  Privacy can be invaded with or without a drone.

This law is redundant and unnecessary.  It's like saying... Although murder has always been illegal, it's now also illegal to murder on Tuesdays.

I don't see this as a problem for radio controlled aerial vehicles, drones as folks call them. I agree with PaulOTron.......redundant and unnecessary.
The legislators are just trying to satisfy some of the publics concerns and have fallen far short of outlawing our hobby. I guess some people won't be able to snoop on their ex wife or ex girlfriend.

PaulOTron Posted at 2015-5-15 14:16
Hell, I just assumed that it has always been illegal to photograph anyone when they have a reasonabl ...

Ah! Thanks for a little wry humor. Had no idea there were so many lawyers who owned a Phantom!

With all the hullabaloo about drones can you imagine the lawyers coming out of the woodwork when driver-less cars start approaching reality? "DRIVER-LESS CAR STRUCK BY AUTONOMOUS DRONE. NO PARTIES PRESENT ON THE SCENE. AUTHORITIES ARE NOW ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP, FAULT AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY"

LOL!

they problem is that since law are often time often to interpretation, you will now have an average joe - non hobby - drone hater, calling the cops on people who are just flying and having fun etc.
And now police officers will be harassing people flying they RC UAVs...

This is an example of more to come, idiots ruining it for everyone.

Just look under DEFINITIONS and tell me this doesnt cover a P3 (I modified adding bold / color only):

DEFINITIONS.—As used in this act, the term:
28 (a) “Drone” means a powered, aerial vehicle that:
29 1. Does not carry a human operator;
30 2. Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
31 3. Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
32 4. Can be expendable or recoverable; and
33 5. Can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload.

references:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/0766/BillText/Filed/PDF

I don't fly to conduct surveillance as specifically defined in the law, so I'm not that concerned about this statute. If someone wants to hire a lawyer to sue a drone owner because they feel that they are under surveillance by him/her, it would be because they've gathered enough evidence to show it. That being said, Florida lawmakers could have also considered high power telescopes, binoculars and camera zoom lenses in the same manner. Malicious misuse of visual technology is wrong and the law affirms that notion, by putting people like private detectives and peeping Toms on notice that they can be punished for that misuse.

Nothing new to see here...move along.

There are already myriad laws forbidding spying on people, intruding on privacy, etc. Other than satisfying legislators' needs to show they are "doing something" to protect their constituents, these laws break no new ground, do they?

The reality is, anyone with a 400mm or longer telephoto lens and a DSLR is a MUCH bigger threat to privacy than is any consumer to prosumer level drone: the images are far clearer, they are obtained from a distance and are taken silently. To get a comparable photo with a drone would require getting extremely close, make a lot of noise, and would still produce a sub-optimal image, compared to one taken with a DSLR...and you don't hear about telephoto lenses and DSLR's every time somebody invades somebody's privacy every time it happens, do you?

But surveillance could be defined as a recording device and capturing private property. I can understand if it's harrassing behavior but like foxsti said this will open the door for people to call the police on pilots whenever they see a drone near their property.

PublicRealtor@g Posted at 2015-5-15 18:02
I don't see this as a problem for radio controlled aerial vehicles, drones as folks call them. I agr ...

There goes my P I Business with drones

I'm in Florida and I think it is a great law.

Why? It is NOT a criminal statute. Someone would have to sue you. Cops aren't involved and can't get involved in civil matters.

It gives people who are violated rights AND gives the operator rights by including the "with the intent to conduct surveillance". Plaintiff would have to prove you were conducting surveillance to win. Then they have to prove damages to get any money.

AND it also stops the cops and state from using drones to do police work. <---- That is GREAT!!!!

I don't see how it could get any better.

suqsid.bobmail Posted at 2015-5-15 21:43
I'm in Florida and I think it is a great law.

Why? It is NOT a criminal statute. Someone would have ...

We already had a law since 2013 to prevent law enforcement from using them without warrants. You make some good points, but keep in mind all you have to do is upload a video of say your neighborhood and if someone's house is in it that could be considered "surveillance" no?

1337brian Posted at 2015-5-15 21:46
We already had a law since 2013 to prevent law enforcement from using them without warrants. You m ...

If you were in the jury, would you call that surveillance?

You sure wouldn't after my lawyer gets through, and that person is going to pay my lawyer bill when he loses.

suqsid.bobmail Posted at 2015-5-15 21:43
I'm in Florida and I think it is a great law.

Why? It is NOT a criminal statute. Someone would have ...

"AND it also stops the cops and state from using drones to do police work. <---- That is GREAT!!!!"

I don't think that's true and if it was, I would't think it was good.  This is great technology for police to use in hostage situations.   And they're a lot cheaper than helicopters, often used to spot running bad guys.  And since helicopters can't take off from just anywhere, their response can be delayed.

Also, if the public sees that they can be used to do some good, that's good press.

PaulOTron Posted at 2015-5-16 02:31
"AND it also stops the cops and state from using drones to do police work.

I generalized. I meant "police surveillance". Yes I see the mistake of calling that "police work".

It says they can't use it for surveillance. Any evidence they get from drone surveillance is inadmissible in court. Of course they can use them for other purposes.

There's a lot of talk of various definitions:

What's a drone?
What's line of sight?  (Does it matter if the drone can be seen through trees?)
Is our maximum allowed altitude relative to our launch altitude, or from the surface directly below?  Does it matter if we launch from a tall building?
Will we establish a minimum altitude above privately owned structures over which we can fly?
Is it relevant whether the drone is directly above private property, versus just looking into it from "public skies?"
...etc.

I'm not asking these questions... Just pointing out that they will be part of current and future discussions.

BUT... I think the definition that needs refining, is "Expectation of privacy."  That's the one we need to hash out and I think it will happen in courts, not through legislation.  It's currently fuzzy because everyone's back yard is visible on Google Maps and from aircraft.  So far we haven't worried about that, but we're worried if the same images are taken from drones.

Personally, the neighbor behind my backyard fence has a 2-story house, and his bedroom window can see into my back yard.  I say he has a right to look out his window, and my wife has a right to go into our back yard in her underwear (or less).  We make our choices, and he makes his.  I'd only take issue if we were being oggled, photographed, or video'd.  (Is video-ed a word?)

It would be incredibly hard to prove/ make a case with this law. This was feel good legislation.

Gatorone30 Posted at 2015-5-16 03:21
It would be incredibly hard to prove/ make a case with this law. This was feel good legislation.

I hope you're right! I hope I don't come off as fear mongering because I'm still going to continue to shoot responsibiy. BUT I feel like the ambiguous wording can still leave some of open for problems down the road.

And idiot number two at 1600 Pennsylvania this week sure didn't help matters.  The IQ of a sack of gravel.

Check out the local story the news did.  The video states that any filming of private property opens you up for lawsuits.

http://m.clickorlando.com/news/n ... e-property/33038174

1337brian Posted at 2015-5-16 05:14
Check out the local story the news did.  The video states that any filming of private property opens ...

Yes, the video states that, because the reporters care more about sensationalism than facts.  The very text the reporter is reading (highlighted at 1:34 in the video) states right below "...with the intent to conduct surveillance on the person or property captured in the image in violation of such person's reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent."

Intent matters.

Reasonable expectation of privacy, although it matters, is clearly defined in the law... "For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone."

So pretty much, if you can't see them from public places on the ground, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

PaulOTron Posted at 2015-5-16 07:15
Yes, the video states that, because the reporters care more about sensationalism than facts.  The  ...

So any height above ground level and capturing their backyard would open you up for litigation no?

What a BS news, I own a drone and I alway fly at 100 feet high or more and believe me at that height you see are the roof of the houses, all those people complaining are just a bunch of envy people that can't afford to have one or are just doing illegal things and are afraid of getting cough by a drone! lol

emiliosacerio Posted at 2015-5-16 08:54
What a BS news, I own a drone and I alway fly at 100 feet high or more and believe me at that height ...

It sucks because the 3 times I've taken it out I've had people complaining. This news story did a number on the community locally. I can't say that I don't empathize a little though. Some moron was literally flying in his neighbors backyard looking in their back window. I would be pissed about that too. Unfortunately everyone around here thinks this is what people buy quadcopters for now.

I haven't seen the actual law but I can tell you I read an article from a UNC law school journal which stated at least here in NC there is no definition in the law of "surveillance". You cannot take the definition from another law and apply it to a new law. Many states are passing laws that wouldn't hold water if brought to court because the wording is all grey wording.

1337brian Posted at 2015-5-16 07:41
So any height above ground level and capturing their backyard would open you up for litigation no?

Well "yes" sort of... But bear in mind EVERYONE is ALWAYS open for litigation.  You could sue me for slander, because you saw the words I typed here, and regardless of the fact that nothing I say is slanderous, you have the right to make that assertion and the right to attempt to persuade a court that my words are slanderous.

You'd lose, of course.

What protects us all (to some extent) is that people don't like to lose lawsuits.  It's expensive and time consuming unless you win.  And unless you win a substantial amount, it can still be a net loss for the "winner".