North Dakota trying to pass a bill creating new crimes and civil actions for invasion of privacy by drone

[Jagerbomb52]

The bill is multifaceted at this point. There are parts that repeat other laws already on the books (e.g. harassing livestock), parts that aren't that offensive (e.g. the general idea of protecting privacy) and parts that will (and should) scare people away from ever putting a drone in the North Dakota skies (e.g. intentionally photographing someone else or their property without consent when they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy," without defining "reasonable expectation of privacy"). The bill is 2.5 pages long and you can ignore the first page (it's definitions you likely won't need). Underlined text is new/proposed while non-underlined text is existing law.
https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/6...GNY2mmBZI_xaLgSjOfPOStuEY7ESnBO3eGEWYkLTwP7NQ

 

[Ansia]

Note to self: You haven't lost anything in North Dakota. No reason to go there. Besides, everyone knows that South Dakota is the place to be.

Edit: My favorite part.

b.To view, follow, or contact another individual or the private property of another individual, without the individual's consent, in a manner that would invade the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, including viewing, following, or contacting through a window;

So if you lift your drone into the air and see your neighbor's backyard, you just violated his privacy and will have to face the law...

 

[HiloHawaiian]

Geeez — It’s so inconsistent.... I can hire a helicopter to fly over somebody’s proeprty and take pictures/video of whatever (at the lowest “legal” attitude which in many areas isn’t clearly defined or enforced). I have done this a few times for companies in rural areas while they test “stuff”. It’s 100% FAA territory, no local/state law has jurisdiction. I can use 50mp cameras w/telephotos to get far greater close-up detail than any drone. Aside from restricted airspace, the only FAA helicopter rule to note is you can’t “fly in a manner that endangers life or property”, according to an FAA Inspector I spoke with 3 yrs ago. That would cover livestock...

A drone at 200’ can discern a human on the ground, but not easily — it depends on the lighting & background. Even at 100’ you can’t ID anyone. Looking through a window can only be done if the drone is right outside the window, LOL. Heck even the $100K police drones can’t ID anyone. This is 3 yrs old, but still relevant:

 

[Ansia]

Geeez — It’s so inconsistent.... I can hire a helicopter to fly over somebody’s proeprty and take pictures/video of whatever (at the lowest “legal” attitude which in many areas isn’t clearly defined or enforced). I have done this a few times for companies in rural areas while they test “stuff”. It’s 100% FAA territory, no local/state law has jurisdiction. I can use 50mp cameras w/telephotos to get far greater close-up detail than any drone. Aside from restricted airspace, the only FAA helicopter rule to note is you can’t “fly in a manner that endangers life or property”, according to an FAA Inspector I spoke with 3 yrs ago. That would cover livestock...

A drone at 200’ can discern a human on the ground, but not easily — it depends on the lighting & background. Even at 100’ you can’t ID anyone. Looking through a window can only be done if the drone is right outside the window, LOL. Heck even the $100K police drones can’t ID anyone. This is 3 yrs old, but still relevant:

remember, ND goverments officials must earn their keep. What better than to make obscure laws to apease the public concerns.

 

[YuKay]

I value my privacy more than I value my drone so I side with the authorities on this. In years to come, I expect we will all be able to pay a fee to add our little slice of real estate to the national NFZ grid which will automatically defend it against the next generation of drones - up to a certain height at least. Nice little revenue earner for the authorities and peace of mind for those who might otherwise be tempted to shoot a stray drone out of the sky.

But probably most private property owners won't bother so I don't envisage gridlock. In some countries, it is already against the law to fly within 500ft of a built-up residential area so most UK towns are already NFZs, strictly speaking.

 

[Tufargon]

I value my privacy more than I value my drone so I side with the authorities on this. In years to come, I expect we will all be able to pay a fee to add our little slice of real estate to the national NFZ grid which will automatically defend it against the next generation of drones - up to a certain height at least. Nice little revenue earner for the authorities and peace of mind for those who might otherwise be tempted to shoot a stray drone out of the sky.

But probably most private property owners won't bother so I don't envisage gridlock. In some countries, it is already against the law to fly within 500ft of a built-up residential area so most UK towns are already NFZs, strictly speaking.

Started in 2015
NoFlyZone database will tell drones not to fly over your house

 

[YuKay]

Started in 2015
NoFlyZone database will tell drones not to fly over your house

…and presumably failed?



A voluntary arrangement was unlikely to work imho.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Started in 2015
NoFlyZone database will tell drones not to fly over your house

Thanks @Tufargon for reminding me of that page. I wonder how many tried to get their homes a NFZ

 

[Tufargon]

I had forgotten about it till I saw that post. I'm not sure if it failed or not.

 

[macoman]

51 Drones is from North Dakota... Ooopps.

 

[Tufargon]

…and presumably failed?

View attachment 3438

A voluntary arrangement was unlikely to work imho.

Failed. Then the same guy created AirMap.
NoFlyZone.org Is No More | Drone Business Center

 

[JSTorsrud]

Funny thing, sort of related to this post. I had a neighbor stop by the other day, asking if I was flying my drone at around 10:30 Pm, near his house. Telling me he stepped outside and saw a drone hovering at his back porch.

First off, I told him NO and Secondly, I told him I don't fly at night and at that time of night I was in BED anyway.

Not exactly sure where this was going, but he was nice about it and went back to his home. But, before left, he said I'll just shoot the damned thing down. I told him NOT to do that, since it would be a FELONY for shooting down an Aircraft. He thanked me telling him that, because he didn't know that.

It would be good to know if this BS Bill ever was voted on or passed!

 

[Jagerbomb52]

From one of the fellows that sat in on the meeting:

"The prime sponsor of the bill introduced the bill. First thing he did during the introduction was to offer what he called a "Christmas tree amendment." He basically took out all of page 1, all of page three, and everything after line 11 on page 2, except a merged lines 20 and 21. The committee still has the original bill before it and will likely consider the amendment sometime soon when it does "committee work." They took about 45 minutes or an hour of testimony. Supporters included the Cattlemens' Association and the ND Farm Bureau. Opponents included the association of realtors, a part 107 licensed geologist who works for the division of mineral resources (I think) where they monitor pipelines and reclamation work with their 9 107 pilots' drones, several other 107 pilots (including me) and one hobbyist. In addition to the geologist, one of the better opposition presentations came from a lobbyist for "Grand Sky" (which I had never heard of. According to wikipedia, it's a "UAS-specific business and aviation park located at the Grand Forks Air Force Base." They apparently have major drone contractors on site and those folks might just pull up their stakes and leave ND if a bill like this becomes law. But here's a pro tip: At the end of the introduction, the prime sponsor closed with a sentence that went something like this: "If you are opposed to this bill, then you are in favor of Peeking Toms." (And, yes, he said "peeking.")

They're essentially "taking it under advisement." They'll do "committee work" on it sometime later. In North Dakota, all bills get voted on in at least one chamber unless all sponsors ask to withdraw it. After they consider proposed amendments, they'll either recommend to the legislative body that they "do pass" it or "do not pass." That hasn't happened yet. They have not scheduled a time when they'll take further action on it. The only way to know when they take action is to either be a lobbyist and sit in on every committee hearing going forward, or hire a lobbyist to do it for you."

 

[JSTorsrud]

From one of the fellows that sat in on the meeting:

"The prime sponsor of the bill introduced the bill. First thing he did during the introduction was to offer what he called a "Christmas tree amendment." He basically took out all of page 1, all of page three, and everything after line 11 on page 2, except a merged lines 20 and 21. The committee still has the original bill before it and will likely consider the amendment sometime soon when it does "committee work." They took about 45 minutes or an hour of testimony. Supporters included the Cattlemens' Association and the ND Farm Bureau. Opponents included the association of realtors, a part 107 licensed geologist who works for the division of mineral resources (I think) where they monitor pipelines and reclamation work with their 9 107 pilots' drones, several other 107 pilots (including me) and one hobbyist. In addition to the geologist, one of the better opposition presentations came from a lobbyist for "Grand Sky" (which I had never heard of. According to wikipedia, it's a "UAS-specific business and aviation park located at the Grand Forks Air Force Base." They apparently have major drone contractors on site and those folks might just pull up their stakes and leave ND if a bill like this becomes law. But here's a pro tip: At the end of the introduction, the prime sponsor closed with a sentence that went something like this: "If you are opposed to this bill, then you are in favor of Peeking Toms." (And, yes, he said "peeking.")

They're essentially "taking it under advisement." They'll do "committee work" on it sometime later. In North Dakota, all bills get voted on in at least one chamber unless all sponsors ask to withdraw it. After they consider proposed amendments, they'll either recommend to the legislative body that they "do pass" it or "do not pass." That hasn't happened yet. They have not scheduled a time when they'll take further action on it. The only way to know when they take action is to either be a lobbyist and sit in on every committee hearing going forward, or hire a lobbyist to do it for you."

I think they have COWS in North Dakota?? And the idea of this Bill is total BS! I along with many others, hope it doesn't pass and is thrown in the BURN PILE!

 

[netfolks2000]

FAA has final juridiction. People need to get over their fanaticism about "privacy". It's gone. We are under surveillance everywhere we go. Just look up at cameras. On the internet our info, how we browse, what we look at, who we know, where we shop, what we buy, our contacts, everything is sifted through for marketing purposes, if not law enforcement. Even your real estate records are online for everyone to see in county records, how much property you own, what type of home you own, etc. On Google Maps you can see the front of your home with a few clicks. On Google Earth you can see from overhead what your property layout is, whether you have a pool or not, how many buildings there are, where it's located, etc. We live in a new age and will have to be vigilant but we can not change the technology, only try to shape what it can do and protect our rights as much as possible. Airspace, however, is no more ours than the minerals under our homes. We occupy the middle, the surface. Even then, we almost pay "rent" even after the mortgage is paid off because without paying taxes on it we could lose it. So we drone pilots have rights, too. As the video shows, you can't see much more than a satellite from above or a helicopter flying over. You can probably see much more driving or walking by a residence. So, balance!!!! Common sense!!!! Please!!! From legislators.

 

[xspwhite]

I don't know exactly what the bill says, but I believe the definition of a reasonable expectation of privacy is limited to the inside of your home. According to law: when you are out in your yard barbecuing, or mowing your grass, or just laying in the sun; you have no reasonable expectation of privacy because you are in what is known as public domain. Naturally you wouldnt walk around your yard without wearing clothing because it is against the law.

If I have a security camera attached to my house, and your house is in the picture; then that's tough potatoes. If I see you doing something I find funny while you are out in your front yard, and decide to take a pic or video with my cell phone; again, thats tough potatoes. As a rule of thumb, dont expect privacy when you are outside in public.

I did have a neighbor one time ask if I saw her on the ground flipping off my drone as it flew above her house. I explained to her how tiny people looked on the ground, and gave her a copy of the drone video. After that, she never bothered me again because I think she realized what we see, and dont see. It's not really much different then google earth except its live footage.

 

[YuKay]

Fortunately, here in the UK, we do have a right to privacy in our own back yard: