Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Legislation seeking to rein in the use of privacy-invading drones

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Brad Vickery, Sep 16, 2015.

  1. Brad Vickery

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Joshua Tree Ca
    [​IMG]
    Monday, August 24, 2015
    SACRAMENTO, Calif. --
    California lawmakers advanced legislation Monday seeking to rein in the use of privacy-invading drones, passing one bill to prevent the use of drones by paparazzi and another making it a trespassing violation to fly drones over private property without permission.

    In the state Senate, lawmakers voted 40-0 to approve AB856 by Assemblyman Ian Calderon, D-Whittier, classifying drone use to take pictures or video on private property as an invasion of privacy. "This bill will make paparazzi accountable for the breach of private property boundaries," said Sen. Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, who carried the bill in the Senate.

    Meanwhile, the Assembly voted 43-11 on AB856 by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, which would create a trespass crime for operating a drone less than 350 feet above ground over private property without consent.

    Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Glendale, who presented Jackson's bill, said it makes sense to extend property rights upward as drones become more popular.

    "If you drive on someone's property with a car, you're trespassing. If you're looking on someone's property to break in, you're trespassing. It makes no sense that a drone should be able to look in your window and the operator should not be guilty of the same trespass," Gatto said.

    Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, was among several Assembly lawmakers who worried the proposal would harm a growing industry and stifle innovation. She has a drone manufacturer in her district, she said.

    "Don't regulate an industry out of business," Grove said.

    Other lawmakers suggested the state should wait for federal regulators to develop policies.

    Gatto said the bill would not affect businesses because the bill maintains a drone corridor and only targets "people up to no good."

    Both bills return to their house of origin for another vote.
     
  2. tcope

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,549
    Likes Received:
    1,394
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    This has already been discussed to death here but I have to wonder.. are people like Gatto really that dumb or do they think everyone else is dumb enough to think what they say makes any sense. People who use cameras to take photos of naked children are pedophiles. So Gatto, do you own a camera?

    What a douche.
     
  3. BigAl07

    BigAl07 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Western North Carolina
    I am pretty sure (not positive) that this was already "shot down" (sorry couldn't help myself) by the Governor of CA.
     
  4. Buckaye

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    420
    Location:
    Orlando
    350 ft is random and stupid - anything over 200 ft provides so little detail on a human level that it would be hard to distinguish who a person is or what they are doing. I do appreciate that at least one of the lawmakers was concerned about squashing an industry with legislation. That is something they need to be concerned about.
     
  5. Meta4

    Meta4 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,759
    Likes Received:
    3,467