Realtor Using Owners Drone Pictures

[SDODD]

Most people I see uploading photos to public areas are dumb enough to leave the EXIF data attached.

Yes, but that cannot be qualified in a courtroom as evidence becasue it was collected without Miranda. It was incorrectly collected.

 

[EnterLeftDownwind]

Yes, but that cannot be qualified in a courtroom as evidence becasue it was collected without Miranda. It was incorrectly collected.

That's completely incorrect and Miranda has nothing to do with it. I suppose you meant to say "warrant" instead of "Miranda."

Assuming that's what you meant, no warrant is needed for something posted publicly to the internet according to the plain view doctrine.

 

[SDODD]

That's completely incorrect and Miranda has nothing to do with it. I suppose you meant to say "warrant" instead of "Miranda."

Assuming that's what you meant, no warrant is needed for something posted publicly to the internet according to the plain view doctrine.

No, if it was to be presented as background you might get a court to allow it. But if it was part of an investigation one cannot force the "poster" to reveal if he was flying when the picture was taken. The chain of evidence is broken without an admission. Such case would require asking him just as with a drivers stop. A licensed diver must do the duties of a driver. But I am not sure there are duties of a photographer.

 

[SDODD]

That's completely incorrect and Miranda has nothing to do with it. I suppose you meant to say "warrant" instead of "Miranda."

Assuming that's what you meant, no warrant is needed for something posted publicly to the internet according to the plain view doctrine.

The more likely event is that someone was harmed and taking civil action and the burden of proof lowered. You still cannot easily compel testimony about an event not in record.

One would be justified in just saying silent.

 

[SDODD]

Yes, but that cannot be qualified in a courtroom as evidence becasue it was collected without Miranda. It was incorrectly collected.

Nor is there an direct connection between a particular drone and a flyer. Anyone could have been flying. The "liscence" is for multiple drones. It is not required to secure parked drones. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[SDODD]

The technological and legal issues are all muddled. Perhaps, hopelessly without new Supreme court decisions on products. The FAA can claim regulatory jurisdiction of a drone but is it in fact not really a cell phone? One can stand around in a field looking up all day long but that does not prove he is "flying". The device could be following a program uploaded from a controller a mile away. We are going to see a lot more tests of all this than any of us care to follow.

 

[GadgetGuy]

In the case of UAV's my OPINION is that a guy with a pilot's license will not necessarily be any safer flying 35' - 100' in the air than a guy without the license. I fully support the notion that any one who practices and is decent at flying and at photography should be able to participate in commerce.

Now... If I were the guy in town with the little Cessna and the 2-seater helicopter that does ALL the aerial photos around here, I might say otherwise. I would cite safety concerns and all that crap in order to protect my little income stream.

Ironically, the major reason stated in granting the FAA 333 Exemption approvals is that using the drone for the aerial photography is far safer and less intrusive and more economical and "greener" than using a real airplane to get the same shots! However, from a drone safety perspective, an experienced drone pilot would be far safer than a real pilot at the controls with no drone flying experience. Nobody said that the FAA 333 Exemption requirements would be logically consistent.