First Time Confronted for Flying my Drone

[aerialimagery]

Truly sorry ... I missread .

No problem. I've done the same thing many times.

 

[dirkclod]

No problem. I've done the same thing many times.

Yeah well I am not supposed to and now that big bad other Mod gonna chap my butt .

 

[Dave Pitman]

That thought train might hold true in Washington Dave, but that is not the case in other parts of the country. Even a legal battle you get wrapped up in that you win is going to cost you time and money defending yourself. Ignorance, in this case, is just that and has no business in our profession. You are supposed to be familiar with the area you are flying in. At least that is my opinion.

So far Washington doesn't have any drone specific laws except no launching in State parks.

In Texas, is it fine to fly over and photograph private property in manned aircraft? Much better cameras can be used in them. If it is okay, it sounds like Texans have a problem with UAS, not privacy concerns?

Regarding just going along so as to not incur legal fees even when you're in the right. I guess we all have to decide when it's in our interest to make a stand.

 

[R Martin]

I was reading the Texas laws regarding taking photographs and expectations of privacy, etc. I'm not sure how to read the laws regarding what is "lawful" as there are some very specific statements about that, and I'm wondering if anything outside of that should be considered "unlawful." But when I read the second part regarding violations, it's only about images taken for the sake of surveillance. The plant that I photographed was not in Texas, and putting the Homeland Security issue aside, if it had been in Texas, could they have cited me for violation of privacy or anything like that when there was no intent to use the photographs for surveillance purposes and that the only intent was for a possible business relationship with the property owners?

As long as you do not share the images in any form with anyone there would not be a lot they could do to you according to my understanding of the law. The minute you post one to the net or show one to a second party you are culpable under the law and if I remember right, they can fine you up to $10,000.00 per image and you could get a stay at Huntsville for up to three years. Were this in Texas, would they prosecute you? For an honest mistake probably not. DHS does not have much of a sense of humor though. I've worked with a few of them on occasion and they seem kinda tightly wound.

 

[aerialimagery]

As long as you do not share the images in any form with anyone there would not be a lot they could do to you according to my understanding of the law. The minute you post one to the net or show one to a second party you are culpable under the law and if I remember right, they can fine you up to $10,000.00 per image and you could get a stay at Huntsville for up to three years. Were this in Texas, would they prosecute you? For an honest mistake probably not. DHS does not have much of a sense of humor though. I've worked with a few of them on occasion and they seem kinda tightly wound.

I don't mean to nitpick, but DHS doesn't have anything to do with the images, do they?

Regarding Texas laws, I'm not disputing what you're saying, but I could only find violations pertaining to use of images for surveillance.

 

[R Martin]

So far Washington doesn't have any drone specific laws except no launching in State parks.

In Texas, is it fine to fly over and photograph private property in manned aircraft? Much better cameras can be used in them. If it is okay, it sounds like Texans have a problem with UAS, not privacy concerns?

Regarding just going along so as to not incur legal fees even when you're in the right. I guess we all have to decide when it's in our interest to make a stand.

Fight the battles you can win. This is not one of them. Texas restricts UAS flights around critical infrastructure unless you own the infrastructure or you are a government entity.You are right in that manned aircraft can get away with a lot more but those are the cards we are dealt and you still gotta play the hand as best as you can. You can still do the job as long as you are working for the entity that owns the utility or at least under contract with them. And if you aren't, you shouldn't be flying over them anyway.
People forget that being able to fly a UAS is not a God-given right; its a privilege. That privilege can be taken away if you don't operate under the rules you have agreed to operate under when you accepted your certificate. Part of that is not infringing on other people's rights to privacy.

 

[aerialimagery]

That privilege can be taken away if you don't operate under the rules you have agreed to operate under when you accepted your certificate. Part of that is not infringing on other people's rights to privacy.

What does is say on the 107 certificate about right to privacy? I'm still trying to understand what that means.

For example in my case in taking the photographs of a plant on speculation (leaving out the homeland security aspect) and unknown to them--the only intended viewer of the images was the owner of the property and for their benefit. Is that a violation of privacy?

 

[R Martin]

I don't mean to nitpick, but DHS doesn't have anything to do with the images, do they?

Regarding Texas laws, I'm not disputing what you're saying, but I could only find violations pertaining to use of images for surveillance.

It all depends on how the court interprets surveillance and you intention to surveil the site. Even if you were totally off-site, you were photographing an area you did not have permission to photograph. You might be able to get away with it where you live...you might not. I personally think its a lot easier to operate within the spirit of the law and be a diligent as possible to not place yourself in compromising situations like this. It's just easier that way.

 

[R Martin]

What does is say on the 107 certificate about right to privacy? I'm still trying to understand what that means.

For example in my case in taking the photographs of a plant on speculation (leaving out the homeland security aspect) and unknown to them--the only intended viewer of the images was the owner of the property and for their benefit. Is that a violation of privacy?

Without their permission, yes. Again, I am talking about my condition where I live. Yours may vary. I encourage you strongly to research the laws locally to you and fully understand your role and liability under your local laws. If you were here, you could possibly face legal action if they chose to press the matter.
107 just covers the regulations under which you operate in the NAS. The test for your cert didn't cover accident reporting criteria for the NTSB either, but you are still held accountable for accident reporting on their timeline which is substantially shorter than the FAA's requirements. 107 isn't the have all and be all, its just a small part of the picture. 107 was just the start, and there is a whole lot more to learn before you take to the skies and start making a living with a UAS.

 

[Dave Pitman]

What does is say on the 107 certificate about right to privacy? I'm still trying to understand what that means.

Nadda.

Notwithstanding what @R Martin is reporting with regard to Texas state law (or any other state or local laws), the FAR's do not address privacy and does not recognize persons or objects out in the public domain as being restricted or taboo in any form.

If there is no law in a particular area that is similar to Texas' law, case law has determined that if something is out in the open and visible to someone walking by, a neighbor on their roof, a manned aircraft, a satellite, or even a uav, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Does than mean that other laws or statutes with the purpose of stopping nuisance behavior would not apply? Of course not. You can be a nuisance with or without a uav though. In most of the United States, you can collect photographs and or video of anything in the public domain, even private property, without breaking laws. Nothing wrong with being a good citizen and asking for permission if possible. But in most cases with what small uas are being used for it's just not practical in many cases. And statements saying that it is inherently illegal absent a specific law is simply not true.

 

[The Editor]

Read this thread with interest.
Obviously things operate a little differently in the US of A when operating commercially.
Were site surveys and risk assessments not undertaken prior to undertaking and initiating the mission? This would have identified any 'sensitive' areas/buildings within the vicinity and appropriate flight paths could be planned accordingly.
Additionally, if I was flying a job/mission I would certainly not think "Oh that looks interesting over there - think I'll nip over and take some photos"
Apart from operating outside your remit and permissions granted for the task in hand it is also unprofessional.

 

[Bob Stekeur]

You might want to check in now and again in case you just vanish.

 

[Rob Hodges]

Look at it this way...your storage space and time cost you money. The Proprietor wasn't interested in purchasing anything from you, so the data you had on his property is costing you storage space and your time to manage it...not worth it. I would have been happy to free up another few gig of computer space.

Remember too, that the government is still a little bit suspicious about what the Chinese are doing with the GPS coordinates they are saving off DJI drones (it was still a big issue before I retired a year ago). I don't even know if the Army ever lifted their restriction against their members using them.

They are still a little skittish about information compilation for military planning purposes...and yes, every country spies on everyone else and creates contingency plans.

Your 107 doesn't mean they know you aren't a spy. It just means you don't have a record that they could easily find. It's not a security clearance and they are well aware of the fact that they mess up enough, even on critical security clearance investigations.

Private companies also have to worry about corporate espionage and groups like PETA or ANTIFA collecting pictures/video to muddy their image...which while not effecting national security, it effects their bottom line.

There are many reasons not to video any installation without their permission.

My advice is just to delete it and move on.

 

[CenlaUAS]

It has always been said “It’s better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.”
In the case of flying a UAS, it is just the opposite. Ask for permission. If you are told no then research the law and ask someone in a higher position. Not everyone knows all rules, regulations and laws. And if the answer is still no, then move on. There are plenty other opportunities out there.

 

[aerialimagery]

1) If I had known the situation I wouldn't have bothered. But having done so and in spite of the confrontation and call, I still cannot see that I broke any laws or rules. If I wanted to do it again, I don't think they could cite me, thought I don't intend to. I'm looking for sales and not trouble. It would be super easy to take very detailed oblique aerial photographs of that facility from a manned aircraft, so they can't really prevent any aerial spying.

2) I don't see that it's "unprofessional" to do aerial photography on speculation.

 

[Bob]

It all depends on how the court interprets surveillance and you intention to surveil the site. Even if you were totally off-site, you were photographing an area you did not have permission to photograph. You might be able to get away with it where you live...you might not. I personally think its a lot easier to operate within the spirit of the law and be a diligent as possible to not place yourself in compromising situations like this. It's just easier that way.

Google has better images of critical infrastructure than I could ever hope to get why do they get to get away with it? Just something to think about, imho.

 

[Bob]

Well in Texas I know one person we can blame for our privacy laws and he is no friend to any person who wishes to fly a drone.that is Lance Gooden, who is now running for office in Washington. And I know he is not getting any votes from me or my friends. If you get bored and want to laugh you should watch his interview by Dallas TV news station.