So, there was a RC "drone" hovering above my house yesterday...I was kinda pissed.
-
Another way to look at it, if you build a faraday cage around your property and someone sneaks onto your property and their cell phone doesn't work.... are you interfering with their authorized station?
-
And in the cell phone case, they are both authorized AND licensed.
-
You can't limit your jamming to just your own property though, and a faraday cage, if you want to build a structure around your allowed space, land size by allowed airspace, then you are probably in your rights to do so - but then again maybe not.
Think about this... Let's say you create a faraday cage of your whole home and that somehow blocks your neighbors ability to receive the local TV/Radio station signals because you are line of sight between them and the towers... would that be legal?
-
@Dashrender said:
Let's say you create a faraday cage of your whole home and that somehow blocks your neighbors ability to receive the local TV/Radio station signals ...... would that be legal?
Yes, at least here. Ditto the faraday cage across your property provided you got a permit to install it.
-
I think we're into some pretty murky legal grounds that make me wish I'd gone to law school to get rich off sorting this all out
-
@Dashrender said:
You can't limit your jamming to just your own property though, and a faraday cage, if you want to build a structure around your allowed space, land size by allowed airspace, then you are probably in your rights to do so - but then again maybe not.
Think about this... Let's say you create a faraday cage of your whole home and that somehow blocks your neighbors ability to receive the local TV/Radio station signals because you are line of sight between them and the towers... would that be legal?
Hopefully that would be legal as building a house can do the same thing and you are allowed to have houses. Tress, houses, etc. interfere with radio signals all the time. Thing about how easily you could get point to point wireless if no human property was allowed to be in the way!!
-
@MattSpeller said:
I think we're into some pretty murky legal grounds that make me wish I'd gone to law school to get rich off sorting this all out
It's murky, mostly because the law is so poor. The law should not be "up to the person reading it." It is designed, in America, to make everyone illegal no matter what they do. A judge can always find you guilty, they just need to interpret the law however they like. The law isn't written in a way that even an attorney could reliably tell you how it would be read. And it isn't like judges have to go to law school, they are just officials. Sometimes highly trained, sometimes not at all. So what can seem like crystal clear law can turn into the opposite of what you think.
-
@scottalanmiller Vive la révolution
-
I've never liked legalese. The moment you have somebody else interpreting the laws of the land is the moment you just lost your freedom. Because the person who is doing the interpreting, as Scott has said (in the case of a judge) can interpret it in an yway they want.
I think laws should be written more like this:
Flying a drone outdoors during daylight hours on your own property is good, and allowed. Flying a drone outdoors at night is not good, and not allowed. Flying a drone with a camera attached and actively recording your neighbors indoors, or outdoors, without their consent is not good, and not allowed. If your drone flies onto someone else's property, it is at their discression as to whether the drone is malicious. At their discression, they may choose to defend their family or property from the drone, treating it as hostile. They may disable, destroy, crush, disassemble or otherwise damage your drone. You are liable for any damages caused by your drone. Please be careful when flying the drone to ensure that others do not deem your drone as a threat and desire its destruction.
If you are convicted by a jury of your peers, or you plead guilty to infraction of the above law, the punishments are as follows:
First offense punishment: $300 fine.
Second Offense punishment, $3,000 fine.
Third Offence Punshment, $3,000 fine, and up to 90 days in city or county jail as determined by a judge.
Fourth Offence and beyond, $10,000 fine, minimum 90 days in jail, and maximum of 3 years as determined by a judge.
Yes, I know... That is harsh. But you should hear what punishments I can dream up for worse crimes.
-
@dafyre said:
I've never liked legalese. The moment you have somebody else interpreting the laws of the land is the moment you just lost your freedom. Because the person who is doing the interpreting, as Scott has said (in the case of a judge) can interpret it in an yway they want.
Yup, there is no freedom when there is Common Law. The two have to be mutually exclusive.
-
@MattSpeller said:
The big question is.... is a drone considered an authorized or licensed station? Easily might be, but I have no idea if that is true.
Show me the license you need to fly a drone.
FAA License for commercial use is required. We have one.
Privates citizens not making any money do not require a license, But the use of the frequencies is a granted licensed use (doesn't require a specific license but it's allowed). As they use 2.4ghz and 5ghz bands, which is allowed. There are also FCC rules about causing harmful interference which jammers would fall under. -
@thecreativeone91 said:
FAA License for commercial use is required. We have one.
Privates citizens not making any money do not require a license, But the use of the frequencies is a granted licensed use (doesn't require a specific license but it's allowed). As they use 2.4ghz and 5ghz bands, which is allowed. There are also FCC rules about causing harmful interference which jammers would fall under.Is it harmful if it just disrupts on your own property? If no damage is caused? It's not frying it, just making it uncontrolled.
2.4GHz is allowed for sure, standard microwave uses it in addition to the IT stuff and other hobby things, but the question is if it is only allowed or if it is authorized. Hard to tell if the legalize makes those the same or different things.
For commercial, do you get your own bands or share with the non-commercial?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
FAA License for commercial use is required. We have one.
Privates citizens not making any money do not require a license, But the use of the frequencies is a granted licensed use (doesn't require a specific license but it's allowed). As they use 2.4ghz and 5ghz bands, which is allowed. There are also FCC rules about causing harmful interference which jammers would fall under.Is it harmful if it just disrupts on your own property?
Harmful is understood to mean harmful to the RF signals.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
For commercial, do you get your own bands or share with the non-commercial?
Not unless you apply for a separate license with the FCC. RF licenses are separate from flying. RF generally unless your rich you do as a special use permit for temporary usage.
-
Reviving old topic
(attaches defibrillator)
CLEAR!
BZZZZT!Here's an interesting read on the results of small arms fire vs Drone over private property
Bloke cuffed for blasting low-flying drone with shotgun
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/30/man_arrested_shooting_camera_drone/ -
Interesting. Problem he will face I think is that he discharged a weapon within city limits while in no danger. Had he done the same thing with a garden hose, a basketball, baseball bat, net or other non-restricted or non-weapon item my guess is this would have been completely different. But if he isn't allowed to just discharge a firearm where he lives, even safely, and he did so while not in danger, it sounds like the drone itself might not even be part of the equation (given that the drone was not armed nor attacking him.)
The pistol to shoot people trespassing after being told they could not enter the property in NY would not work, in Texas would be legal for sure without a doubt, in his city in Kentucky, no idea.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Interesting. Problem he will face I think is that he discharged a weapon within city limits while in no danger. Had he done the same thing with a garden hose, a basketball, baseball bat, net or other non-restricted or non-weapon item my guess is this would have been completely different. But if he isn't allowed to just discharge a firearm where he lives, even safely, and he did so while not in danger, it sounds like the drone itself might not even be part of the equation (given that the drone was not armed nor attacking him.)
The pistol to shoot people trespassing after being told they could not enter the property in NY would not work, in Texas would be legal for sure without a doubt, in his city in Kentucky, no idea.
Effective shotgun ranges are not that far. This drone had to be fairly low.
If the local laws state discharging a firearm in town is not allowed, then he did break that law. But there are also trespassing laws being broken by the drone operators. So yeah, a big ball of new precedents getting set I think if this goes to court.
-
Good enough lawyer should be able to get it dismissed.
when his daughters told him a drone was flying over the neighborhood.This here is enough in some cases to have the charges thrown. As @JaredBusch stated,.. shotguns only have an effect range of so far... They could have been using the drone to scope out victims.
I think he was well within his right,.. but then again - I've been thinking of getting my own sail plane.
It'll be a tough case.
