Apologies if this is elsewhere on GoA, I searched and didn’t see it. Had no idea this was a thing.
we (as in people in general sort of) knew that they used google earth to find stuff like pools and trampolines, right? I don’t know why this would surprise me. only burden is they fly a certain height above the property, no? (I didn’t read it, no)
Yeah this idea isn’t particularly new at this point. We’ve already seen issues with privacy and inaccurate data coming out of these. No litigation of note that I’m aware of, but I expect pushback to eventually come when there’re fewer other giant world problems to grapple with.
3 Likes
Am curious,
But at what height does the state own the airspace over your house in the US?
Related, I had an accident quite a few years ago, had a car brush the side of me in a roundabout.
The insurer said I was 50 percent at fault, said I couldn’t be where I was. They even said their supervisor goes through that roundabout twice a day, and I was wrong. I disagreed. I took them on street view, and showed them a street sign that said I could be where I was.
They changed their decision so I was zero % at fault, all the other guys problem.
Some time later, they took that sign down because it was wrong, and I did some reading and found that I misunderstood roundabouts. I was 100 at fault.
4 Likes
This is apparently still a hotly debated topic. 500ft is generally considered a consensus it looks like, but not legally binding to date. I did find this commentary amusing from a WWII era court case:
There’s also the U.S. Supreme Court case involving a chicken farmer,United States v. Causby. During World War II, the army took over a municipal airport and started flying noisy aircraft over Thomas Causby’s land as low as 83 feet, which scared the hell out of his chickens—150 of them flew into the wall of their coop and died. He sued the government, and the court decided in his favor, so the government had to reimburse Causby for a “taking” of his property. “The Supreme Court said that landowners have as much as can be used in connection with the enjoyment and use of the land,” says Greg McNeal, a professor of law and public policy at Pepperdine University, “In Causby, it was 83 feet. But it’s an open question above that.”
1 Like
I was unsuccessful when I complained about a helicopter hovering about 2000 feet above my house for a half-hour. (News helicopter covering the first visit of an A380 to the airport behind the house.)
Note that at 500 feet, in the US, it should be a regular aircraft surveying, rather than a drone. (I believe the FAA ordinarily limits normal civilian drones to 400 feet.)
There was all this fuss about drones hovering in the area near me a few months ago. Wondered why people didn’t just shoot them but apparently that’s illegal. Seems reasonable enough to me that if a drone is hovering above your house it’s trespassing and at some point you’re allowed to rectify the problem, but I’m guessing NJ doesn’t want people unloading firearms…
Right I left this out and it’s an important note. Specifically, 500ft is a ‘consensus’ around what you own, but drones are indeed regulated to operate below 400ft, so there is a clear conflict in policy.
Oh yeah I forgot about all that hubbub. There still aliens/uavs/drones/commies flying over NJ and the media just died down?
Hank Green did a video about it I found compelling. Basically it’s extremely hard to judge size and distance when looking at something in the sky. These scares happen all the time because humans are flawed animals.
Gartenmann paid a landscaping company $3,000 to prune her trees.
It never costs me this much, and I have a palm and a rather large Maple/Sycamore/Something that grows close. $500 or so, every other year or so.
Get more estimates, people!!
Feels like the truly American approach would be ‘if you can shoot it out of the sky from your house, then it’s too low’.
Hmm, perhaps a homeowners insurer should be asking on its app, “Do you own a gun?” I don’t think mine asked me that.
That’s one of those questions it’s not worth asking, because the folks you want to say “yes” will most likely say “no” (unless, of course, they’re insuring their guns).
This has been an interesting sore spot. I would generally agree with that argument, however the results have mostly been drone operators suing the shooters. I fundamentally disagree with this notion, however the legal arguments are definitely pivoting the other way currently.
Can you actually buy one of those cool anti-drone weapons in the US?
The ones that jam the signal so it basically just falls down to the ground.
That I don’t know. But I can guarantee someone is figuring out how to 3d print one.
1 Like
It’s possible to buy anything in the US.
The practical questions are:
- Is your purchase legal to use?
- If no, what is the likelihood of material consequences if you use it anyway?
- If yes, what is the likelihood that you’re going to be sued despite its legality?
Hmm, maybe anti-drone attack drones, automatically scrambled when one’s local radar notices?
There would likely be a lot of collateral bird damage…