[Maker]

The FAA has jurisdiction over airspace. No entity can ban drones in the air space over their property. There are exceptions to flying for surveillance purposes, but think of that as a detective (or group of them) following someone as they drive around in their car. Seeing what is happening at some random point in time, over a wide swath of land, is not even remotely classified as surveillance.

Courts have decided that incidental encounters from the air do not violate right to privacy. If that was the case, no planes could fly. No helicopters could fly. Satellite maps could not be produced.

The letters from TV lawyers allege violation of drone regulations were committed. If they cannot legally prove that is true, they have damaged the drone operator's reputation. That IS a crime, for which punitive damages can be awarded.

The letters from TV lawyers are demanding C&D plus removal of past videos. That is backed up with threats of legal action (and the related costs for damages). Since those drone activities are 100% legal, those demands amount to an attempt to restrict the operators constitutional rights. That IS a BIG crime, for which HUGE punitive damages are often awarded.

For the Swift hypothetical - yes that is legal. Been affirmed by many courts. But not if flying over people. But not if the airspace is restricted by the FAA (highly unlikely).

For the "No Cameras allowed" hypothetical - that restriction is also legal since it applies to things happening on the ground. It is irrelevant to drones since airspace is not subject to the venue's rules.
Very different for signs that might say "no drones". That has no legal authority because airspace is governed by the FAA, not property owner.
I wonder what would happen if the developer arrested a drone operator. The big lawyer firms would fight for a piece of that civil rights lawsuit.

The developer's actions do NOT "protect everyone’s personal rights". Those rights are defined by law. If they are really trying to change the laws, going after a few drone operators is not going to change anything for "everyone". The law is not being changed by those actions, and the drone operators are following the law. It can be viewed as harassment, and punitive damages can be awarded.
If they wanted to "protect privacy" the developer needs to change the law. Even a freshman law student knows that.

If the developer wants to control the narrative, and deploy their own drones, they need to follow the exact same laws as the other drone operators have to follow. Perhaps they should have hired the people that were already doing videos. Partner with them. Use their experience and skills to enhance the narrative. Maybe even provide private information to control the release of fresh information. With a good relationship in place, if there is something speculative, errors could be prevented. Imagine the hype that could be built up as "see how this new XYZ is coming along" this week. Instead of "how can we threaten them", it should have been "how can we leverage them for a huge PR advantage".

Originally Posted by BrianL99

What’s being discussed, is a fundamental change in the people’s expectation of privacy and I don’t see that the 1st Amendment gives anyone more than the right to “speak”, but not “peep”.

How about if you enjoy having a nude pool parties? You build a 9’ wall around your pool, so no one can see. Your nosy neighbor rents a “boom truck” to trim some trees in his yard, but also snaps some photos of your nude pool party. Fair & reasonable?

You’re Disney World and you come up with an idea for an attraction, that no one’s ever thought of. You start to build it and Universal Studios sends its drones up, to see what you’re building. Fair?

You’re a Mall owner and want to make a big splash, when a new store opens in your mail, so you “black out” all the windows, while construction/fitup of the new store is going on. We see it every day and no one bats an eyelash at such attempts at privacy.

You’re giving a birthday party for your 17 year old daughter and pay $1,000,000 for Taylor Swift to perform at the party. It’s ok if the local TV station parks their drone overhead, to film and records her performance and shows it on their 11 pm news?

How many events have you been to in your life, where there’s a sign at the gate that says: No Cameras allowed? We may not like it, but we expect it. It’s only fair.

Everyone expects “privacy” behind closed doors & windows, but we shouldn’t have the same privacy from above? Lateral privacy is expected, but vertical is not?

The Developer (for whatever reasons) is pursuing a course of action, that will only serve to protect everyone’s personal rights. You may not like his motivation, but his motive serves to protects our own best interests and expectations.

Just because there’s a “business interest" involved, doesn't make the cause any less noble.

If the Developer wants to control the narrative about his business and plans, that should be his right. The erosion of personal rights and perogatives, is something we should all abhor.

Personally, I think Don Wiley’s motivations are legitimate. He simply wants to provide accurate information. I don’t think the Developer has any interest in torturing him (although his recent social media posts seem inflammatory).

The others, I’m not so sure about. Mr. Wiley runs a business, the majority of drone “operators” are nothing more than voyeurs of some sort or another and may be in for a rude awakening. I support the Developer's position, 1000% and it's about time someone with deep pockets, took on this threat to our privacy and life as we knew it.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Maker

The FAA has jurisdiction over airspace. No entity can ban drones in the air space over their property. ...

Very different for signs that might say "no drones". That has no legal authority because airspace is governed by the FAA, not property owner.

.

The FAA does not control the "Airspace".

The FAA controls where devices that qualify as "Aircraft" may fly and under what circumstances.

Class G Airspace (in which drones operate) are by definition, "uncontrolled airspace".

Everyone seems to be fixated on the FAA. It is not in their jurisdiction at this point. They regulate "flying devices" and that portion of the sky, that is regulated ("controlled airspace").

Incidental invasion of privacy, because an airplane is flying over your home, is a giant leap from a drone taking photos of you, in your underwear.

I wonder how enthralled the natives would be, if the Developer decided to use drone over-flights, to search for Deed Restriction Violations? Call me shocked, but I doubt he'd be getting much sympathy from the residents.

Or even better, what if the Developer/Sheriff's Office, decided to enforced Golf Cart Speed regulations, by drone oversight. Be careful what you wish for.

BTW, if you're still convinced the FAA rules the skies, call around and see how many buildings got FAA Permits for their flagpoles. You're generally not even required to notify the FAA for any structure below 200'

[VAtoFLA]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

...

I wonder how enthralled the natives would be, if the Developer decided to use drone over-flights, to search for Deed Restriction Violations? Call me shocked, but I doubt he'd be getting much sympathy from the residents.

...

Insurance companies do it today. They regularly fly drones over and look at roofs they believe to be in disrepair and notify the homeowner that they will not renew unless it is replaced.

Insurance Companies Are Using Drones To Monitor Homes — 4 Things They’re Looking For That Could End Up Costing You

[asianthree]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

I wonder how enthralled the natives would be, if the Developer decided to use drone over-flights, to search for Deed Restriction Violations? Call me shocked, but I doubt he'd be getting much sympathy from the residents.


Or even better, what if the Developer/Sheriff's Office, decided to enforced Golf Cart Speed regulations, by drone oversight. Be careful what you wish for.
'

Residents who abide by deed restrictions would be very Happy that the developer is taking charge of compliance issues

As far as Golf Cart speeds, there are residents, who would pay to see not only cart speeds, but actually write tickets for speeding autos.

I believe some have been wishing for awhile

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by VAtoFLA

Insurance companies do it today. They regularly fly drones over and look at roofs they believe to be in disrepair and notify the homeowner that they will not renew unless it is replaced.

Insurance Companies Are Using Drones To Monitor Homes — 4 Things They’re Looking For That Could End Up Costing You

You're 100% right and this is where the discussion gets interesting.

People are fond of saying, an "The Assessor has no right to come into your home". That's usually an accurate characterization. So instead, folks want to make aerial observation, acceptable?

In many states, Environmental agencies are not allowed to "trespass". As I've been told by various Environmental agencies, "we can take aerial photos of your property", if we can't see an area from your property lines.

So my question remains. Are all the folks supporting the drone operators, going to be similarly supportive of the Developer/CDD's, using aerial photography to enforce Deed Restrictions? I think not.

What about if the so-called "trolls" who wander neighborhoods, looking for non-compliant homes, decide to implement drone searches? Are you all good with that?

What about using aerial photography & face recognition, to insure only residents are using the swimming pools? Does everyone agree with that approach?

How about drone surveillance, to insure compliance with the dress code at golf courses?

When VA & AL started using air surveillance to catch speeders, people were up in arms. It died down through the years, because the goal was public safety. There are few, in any, "public safety" reasons to photograph rooftops, swimming pools or the Developer's construction.

Orwell's Big Brother of 1984. The camel's nose is under the tent, folks.

[BPRICE1234]

Originally Posted by jsa

Anyone know why the Youtuber Papa Pineapples was grounded? Assume it is something by The Villages?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NO42bj2Vxc

I hope that our money/fees are not going to this drone BS. The Villages better be paying for this crap out of their own pockets. These videos helped us to decide to move here. People deserve an unbiased opinion.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BPRICE1234

I hope that our money/fees are not going to this drone BS. The Villages better be paying for this crap out of their own pockets. These videos helped us to decide to move here. People deserve an unbiased opinion.

For most of us, NONE of our money/fees go to the Developer. For those of us in an area where the amenities have not yet been sold to the District, the Developer does collect amenity fees but that goes towards the amenities and not towards drone BS.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

You're 100% right and this is where the discussion gets interesting.

People are fond of saying, an "The Assessor has no right to come into your home". That's usually an accurate characterization. So instead, folks want to make aerial observation, acceptable?

Fine with me; I expect that is happening already.

In many states, Environmental agencies are not allowed to "trespass". As I've been told by various Environmental agencies, "we can take aerial photos of your property", if we can't see an area from your property lines.

So my question remains. Are all the folks supporting the drone operators, going to be similarly supportive of the Developer/CDD's, using aerial photography to enforce Deed Restrictions? I think not.

Fine with me too. However, the Developer and CDDs do not file the complaints or investigate the complaints.

What about if the so-called "trolls" who wander neighborhoods, looking for non-compliant homes, decide to implement drone searches? Are you all good with that?

Yep, still fine with me. Disagree with the actions of the mythical trolls but similarly disagree with the actions of werewolves and leprechauns.

As we are not allowed to have privacy fences I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a drone would be needed to find a violation.

What about using aerial photography & face recognition, to insure only residents are using the swimming pools? Does everyone agree with that approach?

The technology is not mature enough and using a drone rather than a fixed camera would be wasteful.

How about drone surveillance, to insure compliance with the dress code at golf courses?

There aren't enough dress police already??

...

Orwell's Big Brother of 1984. The nose is under the camel's tent, folks.

Feels like a bit of a stretch.

[VAtoFLA]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

You're 100% right and this is where the discussion gets interesting.

People are fond of saying, an "The Assessor has no right to come into your home". That's usually an accurate characterization. So instead, folks want to make aerial observation, acceptable?

In many states, Environmental agencies are not allowed to "trespass". As I've been told by various Environmental agencies, "we can take aerial photos of your property", if we can't see an area from your property lines.

So my question remains. Are all the folks supporting the drone operators, going to be similarly supportive of the Developer/CDD's, using aerial photography to enforce Deed Restrictions? I think not.

What about if the so-called "trolls" who wander neighborhoods, looking for non-compliant homes, decide to implement drone searches? Are you all good with that?

What about using aerial photography & face recognition, to insure only residents are using the swimming pools? Does everyone agree with that approach?

How about drone surveillance, to insure compliance with the dress code at golf courses?

When VA & AL started using air surveillance to catch speeders, people were up in arms. It died down through the years, because the goal was public safety. There are few, in any, "public safety" reasons to photograph rooftops, swimming pools or the Developer's construction.

Orwell's Big Brother of 1984. The camel's nose is under the tent, folks.

I think conceptually, you and I are in agreement on what we might want it to be as the technology becomes cheaper, better and more invasive. For now though, we have to deal with how it is and most of the things you mention I think are legal under current laws.

As someone else mentioned in the thread, TV should use their considerable influence to advocate for modifying the laws for the good of all vs using it to try and find the pocket depth of a few independent journalists to chill their activities.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by VAtoFLA

I think conceptually, you and I are in agreement on what we might want it to be as the technology becomes cheaper, better and more invasive. For now though, we have to deal with how it is and most of the things you mention I think are legal under current laws.

As someone else mentioned in the thread, TV should use their considerable influence to advocate for modifying the laws for the good of all vs using it to try and find the pocket depth of a few independent journalists to chill their activities.

We all grew up in a world where cameras were novelties and video equipment, almost non-existent. Both of which, were reasonably obvious when in use.

For the last 20+ years, we've lived in a world where everyone is carrying a an audio/visual recording device. Any time we're in "public", we have to be aware that we might be photographed or video'd.

Since drone technology became prevalent, we now have to be aware that we could be video'd at anytime, whether in a "public" place, or (what was formerly) a "private" place.

Why are people focused on protecting the rights of the surveillant and not protecting the rights of the subject of the surveillance?

[Whatnext]

So Amazons trials of robot or drone delivery, wheeled or airborne, will not include The Villages.
Privacy concerns?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Whatnext

So Amazons trials of robot or drone delivery, wheeled or airborne, will not include The Villages.
Privacy concerns?

The issue is video surveillance, not drone deliveries.

[Altavia]

There are numerous examples where similar efforts to suppress information have induced the "Streisand effect" - where an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information increases public awareness of the information.

The consequences are now being discussed far wider than just The Villages.

Streisand effect - Wikipedia

[VAtoFLA]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

We all grew up in a world where cameras were novelties and video equipment, almost non-existent. Both of which, were reasonably obvious when in use.

For the last 20+ years, we've lived in a world where everyone is carrying a an audio/visual recording device. Any time we're in "public", we have to be aware that we might be photographed or video'd.

Since drone technology became prevalent, we now have to be aware that we could be video'd at anytime, whether in a "public" place, or (what was formerly) a "private" place.

Why are people focused on protecting the rights of the surveillant and not protecting the rights of the subject of the surveillance?

And the additional technology that already allows drones nowhere near your property to zoom in on it with advanced camera technology.

I'm not sure this thread is about protecting the rights of surveillants as much as it is about a large developer with deep pockets using lawyers to bully small business men with laws that they likely already know don't mean what they are trying to indicate they mean. That makes the real message essentially "You're right, but can you afford to fight me".

If instead of this, if the news was the Villages advocating for changing drone and aerial picture and video capture laws to protect privacy, you would find many more in favor of that. It's just not what they are doing and what they are doing will only protect them and not you and I.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The issue is video surveillance, not drone deliveries.

An issue is restricting information previously available that allowed buyers to perform due diligence prior to purchasing a property.

The Developer does not voluntarily disclosed information known to impact the future value of a property.

For a recent example, ask home buyers who bought property near a power distribution facility but were not informed of the planned expansion of that facility.