[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

That might be a violation of the law. But is there any evidence that any of them have posted pictures of anyone skinny dipping in their backyard?

I haven't seen any.

Me either. That's why I said, "What if". I don't have the answers, but I do have questions. Don't you?

[PersonOfInterest]

Even though I side with the drone flyers I see valid arguments for both sides of this issue. One has to wonder why the drone flyers are even thinking of trying to fight the mighty developer. To prove that you have done everything legally does not necessarily make what you are doing right. Are the drone flyers really ready to fund this legal action just to appease the public who want to see their videos or are they trying to protect the substantial income they derive from the videos? I love the videos and information these people put out as do many of us, but shouldn't the developer be able to conduct their business without the 5 or 6 prying eyes looking at every move they make? They want to control the narrative, and shouldn't they have the right to do so? Would you want to run a business under the scrutiny and dissemination of information such as what they're experiencing? Beyond the legal issues of air space and privacy there are other issues of how much freedom should be allowed to conduct business under the law. Here we have two businesses that are clashing in the legitimate conducting of their businesses. Should this go to legal action it will certainly be an interesting battle, probably with monumental decisions.

[Justputt]

It boils down to airspace and who has the final say... Feds, State, or local. idk. As for the developer, I get it, but those same developer arguments and been made and LOST by people that don't like drones flying over their private property and filming their private property. Does any maybe in the drone club know the state of the law?

[midiwiz]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

When you make multi million dollar donations you usually get what you want from politicians. This is a great place to live but the developer does tend to go overboard to get what he wants.

Think about what you just said. More pointedly, how can it be a great place to live if the developer goes overboard (a lot) and gets what he wants no matter what the effect is to residents (now or future)???

Are you saying you'd rather live in a controlled society? I hear there are places to live in China....try it.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Justputt

It boils down to airspace and who has the final say... Feds, State, or local. idk.

That one is easy, the FAA has the final say and can preempt State or local attempts at managing airspace.

But airspace is NOT the issue that was raised in this case, videography and publishing is and the FAA claims no jurisdiction over that.

As for the developer, I get it, but those same developer arguments and been made and LOST by people that don't like drones flying over their private property and filming their private property. Does any maybe in the drone club know the state of the law?

Yes they do and they have published links to the law in one of the three threads. Much of what we have heard so far is going to boil down to interpretation of the definition of surveillance as used in the Florida law. That's up to the courts. There is another letter reported in the online news source that shall not be named which mentions the possibility of some unsafe and illegal practices by some of the drone operators - that activity needs to end.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by PersonOfInterest

...

To prove that you have done everything legally does not necessarily make what you are doing right. Are the drone flyers really ready to fund this legal action just to appease the public who want to see their videos or are they trying to protect the substantial income they derive from the videos? ...

shouldn't the developer be able to conduct their business without the 5 or 6 prying eyes looking at every move they make? They want to control the narrative, and shouldn't they have the right to do so? Would you want to run a business under the scrutiny and dissemination of information such as what they're experiencing? Beyond the legal issues of air space and privacy there are other issues of how much freedom should be allowed to conduct business under the law. Here we have two businesses that are clashing in the legitimate conducting of their businesses. Should this go to legal action it will certainly be an interesting battle, probably with monumental decisions.

Excellent post. I've been saying the same thing and I can't fathom why a community of conservatives, doesn't see the logic.

For the entire history of the world, we've been able to arrange "privacy" (both personal & business) by closing the door, covering the windows, building a wall or just simply "hiding".

Now, folks are saying, "oh yeah, I agree with all that ... but spying from above is ok".

[Red Rose]

Maybe you Droners could just abide by the developer’s wishes. People have stolen a lot of building supplies from them so this might be the reason they don’t want any videos or pictures of their property.

[USOTR]

I for one do not like the idea of drones flying over my house.

While there isn't a federal law that specifies a minimum height above your property that protects you from drone flights it is a Privacy Intrusion.

Intentional Recording: The stated purpose of surveillance and recording implies a deliberate effort to capture images and videos, which significantly increases the potential for privacy violations compared to casual drone flights.

Public Dissemination: Publishing the footage on YouTube amplifies the impact of any privacy breach. What might be a fleeting observation becomes a permanent and publicly accessible record.

Potential for Identification: Even if faces aren't directly targeted, individuals might be identifiable through their clothing, location, or activities, leading to unwanted exposure.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:

State and Local Privacy Laws: As mentioned before, Florida likely has laws regarding privacy, recording individuals without their consent, and potentially even stalking or harassment. The drone operator's activities could potentially run afoul of these laws.

Florida's Recording Laws: Florida is an "all-party consent" state for recording conversations. While this might not directly apply to video recording in public spaces, it highlights the state's emphasis on privacy.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: Even if the recording takes place outdoors, individuals may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain areas of their property (e.g., backyards, patios). Recording these areas without consent could be problematic.

Harassment and Intimidation: If the drone is used to specifically target or harass individuals, it could constitute a criminal legal offense.

YouTube's Policies: YouTube also has policies regarding privacy and harassment. If the content filmed by the drone violates these policies, YouTube could remove the videos or even suspend the channel.

Ethical Concerns: Beyond legal issues, there are significant ethical considerations. Recording people on their property without their knowledge or consent can be seen as intrusive and disrespectful.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by midiwiz

Think about what you just said. More pointedly, how can it be a great place to live if the developer goes overboard (a lot) and gets what he wants no matter what the effect is to residents (now or future)???

Are you saying you'd rather live in a controlled society? I hear there are places to live in China....try it.

Nothing in life is perfect but overall this is a great place to live.

[FredMitchell]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Even if the droners win, they will probably have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees. The term is Pyrrhic victory!

The Florida statute allows for full offset of legal fees for the loser of any civil suits for this, with the possibility of double the fees.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Red Rose

Running a puppy mill is very offensive to me.

Originally Posted by Red Rose

That alone is disgusting; running a puppy mill.

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

Wait, what? Don runs a puppy mill?

These comment about running a puppy mill are false and are more political BS that some want to put out because they want you to believe the worst of people, in my case because I was appointed by the governor to replace a disgraced county commissioner and then proceeded to win the next 2 elections that I am somehow indebted to the developer. They want you to believe that I am somehow in the developer's pocket because they encouraged the business community to support me in the elections. Why would they support me? Because they know I don’t have any hidden agenda, I don’t hate our business community, I don't believe in dividing the county, because we are all one county that will succeed or fail together.

Here are the facts,
I own 2 Golden Retrievers - 1 female (Lilly-5) and 1 male (Sully-3), 2 years about we allowed them to breed, and we had a litter of 7 pups, after raising them in our home we sold them at 8 weeks, most still live in The Villages and we try to stay in touch with them on a regular basis. After covering our costs the profits were donated to animal rescue charities.

Last year Lilly went into season early and we had a choice of separating the dogs for a month (they are a bonded pair, and it would have been devastating to both), having Sully mutilated, or canceling a cruise vacation and letting nature take its course. We decided on the latter and because of the late timing we lost half of the $10,000 cruise fare that we had paid when we canceled the trip.
We were blessed with a litter of 10 pups in the second liter, after raising them they were sold and once again after costs covered the profits were donated to dog related charities.

The pups all went home with the understanding by the new owners that if for any reason they were not about to care of the dog no matter the age, that the dog was never to go to a shelter or rescue, that I was to be called and I would take the dog back, no questions asked. I would see to the needs of the dog and ensure that it would be rehomed to a loving and caring family.
After the second litter went home and Lilly’s body fully recovered, we had here spayed in October. She was an incredible mother to both litters and could have had another litter but at almost 5 years old we felt she had contributed enough to the perpetuating of the breed with 17 pups.

Anyone how knows me personally knows that I absolutely love my Sully and Lilly, and that I spare nothing to ensure their care, health, and happiness. Anyone who doubts what I’ve said, you are welcome to come meet Sully and Lilly and see for yourself, I have nothing to hide. My phone number is available on my website to call and arrange a visit.

This has gone way off topic.