A new legistlative bill is scheduled for vote in a few days in WA state:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/s ... =1093&year=2015

If you care, maybe you should share your opinion with WA state legislators. There's a "Comment on this bill" button on that web page.

The bill is here: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/bi ... se%20Bills/1093.pdf

This is quite interesting reading:
(b) Any image of a person taken from any location in the Washington state airspace, when the person whose image has been captured is on private property, the landowner and tenants with a right to occupy the private property have not consented to the capture of images of their person on the property, and the taking of such an image is in violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy of the person. The legislature finds and declares that except as otherwise required by the first amendment of the United States Constitution, the reasonable expectation of privacy of a person whose image has been captured under the circumstances described in this subsection (3)(b) has been violated when the image could not have been captured from outside the boundaries of the property on which the person is located [...]

I see quite a few problems with this bill:
- I think there's too much fear about privacy concerns related to quads without understanding what can be done with a small quad like a Phantom
- it seems like it may become illegal to take a picture from an airplane (G airspace) because privacy concerns
- the inovation may be restricted in WA state - with such restrictive laws, I'm quite sure, Boeing, Amazon and many small companies or individual engineers won't be able to experiment and inovate anymore

Google Earth and all other satellite photos would be in violation of this, yes?  Other than satellites aren't in "airspace".

yes anthony i thought about that

I've read it and don't see this as an anti-Phantom law as much as I see it as a personal privacy law.  You can't spy on a person on their own property today and this bill appears to clarify that you can't spy on someone using a flying camera.   I wouldn't take this any other way.

kenargo Posted at 2015-1-27 06:06
I've read it and don't see this as an anti-Phantom law as much as I see it as a personal privacy law ...

What altitude would you have to be at to constitute it not be spying?  The law doesn't say.

Gerry1124 Posted at 2015-1-27 06:09
What altitude would you have to be at to constitute it not be spying?  The law doesn't say.

actually this initiative mentions G airspace (1200 feet or below)

kenargo Posted at 2015-1-27 06:06
I've read it and don't see this as an anti-Phantom law as much as I see it as a personal privacy law ...

here's the bill digest (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/bi ... /House/1093.DIG.pdf):

Prohibits the use of unmanned aircraft equipped with sensing devices that collect personal information, including images of individuals on private property that could not have been captured without the assistance of the unmanned aircraft.

I'm not a lawyer but I assume, based on this bill, the police can give you a ticket if they see you using a Phantom 2 Vision+. Of course, you can argue in court that you were not collecting personal information, that the camera was used for other purposes, etc.

Can you recognize me in this picture?  This is only at 400 feet.  The law stating 1200 feet will never stand.

Gerry1124 Posted at 2015-1-29 10:59
Can you recognize me in this picture?  This is only at 400 feet.  The law stating 1200 feet will nev ...

Sure. You were staying next to the building
I'm joking. I know that from a separate post of yours.

Unfortunately, the reps are not RC users or owners, and I doubt they care. The bill is a good excuse that they defend the privacy (and appease the voters concerned recently about the privacy due to recent government surveillance programs and mass data collection)

ciprianboboc.gm Posted at 2015-1-29 10:58
here's the bill digest (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Digests/House/1093.DIG. ...

Key points are "private property".  So if you are flying over someone back yard and checking out the sun bathers, your in trouble.  Flying at the beach, park, forest land, etc., public property.

Yes, I've asked an attorney; basically, if the person is in a location where privacy is expected (like your back yard (not front yard) and the yard has privacy boundaries (fence, bushes, etc) then there is an expectation of privacy but if you can see the are from public land, and without the use of enhanced visual equipment then it OK and no infraction.  I just don't see the concern.  Even today, you take a camera, peak over someone's fence and take pictures and you are bound to have trouble.

Gerry1124 Posted at 2015-1-29 10:59
Can you recognize me in this picture?  This is only at 400 feet.  The law stating 1200 feet will nev ...

Wait, wait; still looking.

Oh, hold on, this is a public space so you have no expectation of privacy.  I don't a location where the public is welcome can be considered private property (even though technically it is privately owned).  Now, if they had a "no pictures allowed" posted sign (and you could read it from up there) then you might have a problem.

Nice hat ;)

ciprianboboc.gm Posted at 2015-1-29 11:05
Sure. You were staying next to the building
I'm joking. I know that from a separate post of you ...

Why set 1200 feet when they already have a restriction of 400 feet.  If they do take someone to court if this law passes, they will lose the case and show everyone how incompetent the legislators really are.

kenargo Posted at 2015-1-27 06:06
I've read it and don't see this as an anti-Phantom law as much as I see it as a personal privacy law ...

And to be even more specific here's more description for this bill, as presented here (https://app.leg.wa.gov/CMD/Handl ... InEP8&att=false):

HB 1093 would add a new chapter to Title 14 RCW relating to the use of unmanned aircraft (commonly referred to as drones). The bill would ban the use of unmanned aircraft with active sensing devices, unless specifically authorized by the federal government.

This bill will be a good source of revenue for police, considering that, according to the same document mentioned by me above:
There are potential fine revenues that may result from the bill. Each misdemeanor crime is subject to up to a $1,000 fine. The bill would create a new misdemeanor crime (Section 4) and there may be some increase in the number of misdemeanor charges and accompanying fines.

Gerry1124 Posted at 2015-1-29 11:07
Why set 1200 feet when they already have a restriction of 400 feet.  If they do take someone to co ...

Have you even met a competent legislator.

They don't call them politicians for nothing.  This of the root here:  "poly" (meaning many) and "tics" (a blood sucking creature).  Seams to sum it up doesn't it.

These are private places.  I can't see anyone except me or what they are doing.

kenargo Posted at 2015-1-29 11:12
Have you even met a competent legislator.

They don't call them politicians for nothing.  This of  ...

I have written a letter to our dear reps in Olympia regarding this bill. There's a "Comment on this bill" button on their website (http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/s ... p;year=2015#history)
I've also taken 2 pictures of myself from 50 feet and 100 feet to prove the limits of the technology when you're far away (and not use zoom lens).

I don't want to waste my time on court to argue on a bill like this. I'd rather sell my Phantom and let other deal with this pain, and I'll limit myself to fly my small quads inside my house.
But, as long as the bill is still an initiative, it doesn't take so much time to write and send some letters.

from 100 feet:


from 50 feet:


Last year, the same bill passed (and it was proposed by the same Jeff Morris). But our governor rejected it.

Lets hope your governor has enough common sense to veto this bill too.

Gerry1124 Posted at 2015-1-29 11:24
Lets hope your governor has enough common sense to veto this bill too.

I would strongly suggest that all those in WA write to the man and point out the errors in this bill. If you do not voice your opposition you can't really complain if it passes can you?

trailtec.email Posted at 2015-1-29 16:38
I would strongly suggest that all those in WA write to the man and point out the errors in this bi ...

Yes, I agree.
But I'm advising people at least to express their opposition on the Bill page (indicated by me above). Personally, I wrote to some state legislators too - because they can reject the bill first before it can land on the governor's table.

I wonder why state legislators don't vote a bill to make it criminal to use cars with some new technology (including rear cameras)... The cameras are evil, they can violate privacy and I understand that cars are very dangerous, even lethal