I need your help in preventing legislation in my town.

I have been quietly enjoying my Phantom 4 for about a year. I just received my weekly local small town newspaper in North Reading Massachusetts, USA and read this:

NORTH READING – Town Meeting voters will be asked to consider a new bylaw regulating the use of drones in North Reading.
At Monday night’s selectmen’s meeting, Chief Mike Murphy reported that there are currently fairly few laws on the books at the state and federal level when it comes to areas such as drones and privacy. “We’re just looking to avoid somebody using it to look into somebody’s home or their yard,” Murphy told selectmen. He also acknowledged that enforcement of the bylaw would likely not be easy, but added that “we have nothing else at this point.” Current federal operations apparently drones to operate with considerable freedom as long as they remain in the operator’s line of sight and do not exceed 300 feet.

Violations under the proposed bylaw could potentially carry a $300 fine for each violation.
The warrant article in question for June states that anybody authorized under federal law to operate an unmanned aircraft system may operate them in North Reading for any lawful purpose, if the device is operated in consistency with federal law.

Another provision specifically bans drone operation in any manner that interferes with police, fire or emergency medical personnel, as well as search and rescue personnel. Drone and model aircraft operators are prohibited from operating their devices “in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another, nor can they operate them in any way that would violate a restraining order or any other judicial order.

Under the proposed bylaw, drones operating in North Reading would also be prohibited from capturing video, photo or audio recordings of an individual in any manner violating their reasonable expectation of privacy, and operators would also be prohibited from bringing their devices (outside of takeoff and landing) within 25 feet of any individual not assisting them.
The bylaw also requires drone operators to maintain eye contact with the device at all times, with no assistance from binoculars, night vision goggles, or other such equipment. Finally, it also notes that all applicable federal aeronautics regulations apply to unmanned aircraft systems operating in North Reading.

So, without a bunch of useless remarks about this...I need some well thought out arguments that can help nip this legislation before it gets off the ground (no pun intended!).

I haven't begun to formulate my own arguments in a written form yet. I thought that the DJI Forum brain trust might already have links, prepared statement/arguments, etc. to help. If such information does not formally exist, maybe we can start here to compile facts, myths, arguments, rebuttals to opposing arguments and the like for all to use that will face this type of knee-jerk legislation.

Thanks,
David

The only concerning part is "Under the proposed bylaw, drones operating in North Reading would also be prohibited from capturing video, photo or audio recordings of an individual in any manner violating their reasonable expectation of privacy".  It's too vague.  Beyond that, there are already laws on the book that deals with that.  There is no reason to add addition laws.  A drone is merely a camera.  I'm positive your city has anti peeping-tom laws.  There is no reasons to muck up the law by adding duplicate laws, especially when it doesn't actually add anything.  

Someone will say "we just want to stop people from using a drone to spy on someone in their backyard".

You would then say "Fine, then lets word the law so it's more specific in that regard".

The idea is to get the language to match the already existing language on the books in your city regarding the use of video capture devices and privacy.  That way the law passes for the dumbasses, but it doesn't actually change anything for the smart people.

All that being said - even if everything passes the way it is described in the article, I don't think you have much to worry about.  It's basically just rehashing existing laws and saying "this also counts with a drone".

method007 Posted at 2017-5-11 12:06
The only concerning part is "Under the proposed bylaw, drones operating in North Reading would also be prohibited from capturing video, photo or audio recordings of an individual in any manner violating their reasonable expectation of privacy".  It's too vague.  Beyond that, there are already laws on the book that deals with that.  There is no reason to add addition laws.  A drone is merely a camera.  I'm positive your city has anti peeping-tom laws.  There is no reasons to muck up the law by adding duplicate laws, especially when it doesn't actually add anything.  

Someone will say "we just want to stop people from using a drone to spy on someone in their backyard".

Yes, I noted that it was very vague. However, this is just an article. I wonder if I can get the proposed bylaw or if the town meeting is simply a forum to open the discussion about whether the town should even entertain such a bylaw.

Also, as you mentioned, I too thought of other methods of using a camera such as SLR, Cell, Video recording cameras, Google Street, Google maps, etc. and should there be a 'ban' or legislation about using these devices too? I should find out is there are local laws related to privacy.

There are already laws against voyeurism.
There's no need for separate laws based on the method used by a voyeur whether they prefer to use of binoculars, ladders, mobile phones, upstairs windows etc.
Neither should there be for drones.

The idea that drones pose a significant privacy risk comes from ignorance.
If you could give a demo flight to some of the councillors, you could demonstrate how the drone is one of the worst possible spy devices.

The other proposed rules regarding drone rules are duplicating federal (FAA) rules that are already in place.
There's no need for a separate local law to cover this.

I would go to the council and offer to fly your aircraft for them so they can see exactly what can be seen from the camera. A demonstration is worth a thousand words, because they would all have the opinion at this point in time that a drone is a perfect spy device, which it is not.

The laws they are considering are already in effect for general photography anyway. You are permitted to take photographs in public spaces unless doing so would breach someone's expectation of privacy. Just because the camera is on an UAV and the public space is aerial it should not make a difference.

Two ways that you can react that I see.

One is that you arrange to demonstrate to the councillors how close an aircraft has to be to breach privacy with such a wide lens. This could be by arranging to show them some actual flights or by preparing a video showing the view from the aircraft at the same time someone else is recording the flight from the ground.

The other is you do nothing. It sounds like the proposed by-laws are only a rewording of what already exists. They may well be aware of this and are going through this exercise to placate some people who are lobbying for them to take some action. If they do pass those by-laws they should not affect you undertaking legal flights and they are being seen to be doing something. This may well just be a bit of political grandstanding.