[tophcfa]

How can the government say that drones encroach on privacy when they already use satellites for surveillance?

[Snakster66]

Originally Posted by BPRICE1234

People deserve an unbiased opinion.

Would it be wrong to point out that this is an oxymoron?

[Normal]

The videographer’s have their constitutional rights to freedom of speech. The Developer has no rights regarding building in privacy. All builders do is a matter of public record anyway, papers are filed, meetings are held, courthouses have anecdotal paper trails for review so nothing really is done in secrecy anyway.

Hands down this is an easy victory for YouTubers and their work. Perhaps it may even be worthwhile to seek YouTube for legal funds like Airbnb has supported some landlords in anti rental situations?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Normal

The videographer’s have their constitutional rights to freedom of speech.

Can you please point out where the constitution provides the "Right to Video" ?

So let's take this a step farther. Mr. Videographer is flying his drone and taking video. Mr. Smith is behind his home, hidden from all his neighbors and drinking beer. No one can see him from the street or the abutting homes, so he opts for the quick & easy solution ... he pees in his pool ...

... just when the drone happens to silently fly over his home, taking video. The videographer doesn't happen to notice what his camera inadvertently captured and he posts it on You Tube for the neighbors and law enforcement to see.

Unintended consequences can be an issue.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Can you please point out where the constitution provides the "Right to Video" ?

... just when the drone happens to silently fly over his home, taking video. The videographer doesn't happen to notice what his camera inadvertently captured and he posts it on You Tube for the neighbors and law enforcement to see.

Unintended consequences can be an issue.

Go with spirit and intent. Whether it’s speech or a video. There has long since been case law established where there are different forms of speech.
Hypotheticals happen in real life all the time. So what? Google takes a picture of your backyard every 6 months too, it happens and there is nothing that can be done. Why, because there is nothing expectation of privacy.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by Normal

The videographer’s have their constitutional rights to freedom of speech. ...

It should be noted that the Constitution's Right to Freedom of Speech ONLY regulates that a government cannot restrain or punish an individual's right to say what they wish.

It does NOT regulate anything anyone wants to say at any time in any forum. Any non-governmental entity CAN restrict free speech.

The right to free speech is not a blanket allowance for anyone to say what they wish without consequences, only that the Government may not exact consequences based on something someone says or expresses.

Just ask those who have been in TOTV jail if they have been permitted to say whatever they wish on the privately owned TOTV forum.

[VAtoFLA]

I think @Normal's point was that because they are not on The Villages property, they are not subject to the Villages rules (their sign). TV is seeking then to control what would be a protected activity in filming while not trespassing.

TV hasn't done anything but threaten civil litigation. They know they don't have authority over the sky.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by VAtoFLA

I think @Normal's point was that because they are not on The Villages property, they are not subject to the Villages rules (their sign). TV is seeking then to control what would be a protected activity in filming while not trespassing.

TV hasn't done anything but threaten civil litigation. They know they don't have authority over the sky.

Another valid point is the developer doesn’t own all the property they want restrictions of filming on. Often they are in “joint ownership” with a depositor who may have already purchased the land they are building on. I know that the lot has to be paid for before a design appointment is even accomplished. I believe also that there are circumstances where co-owners actually ask people like Goldwingnut to film and follow construction on their property.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by Normal

Another valid point is the developer doesn’t own all the property they want restrictions of filming on. Often they are in “joint ownership” with a depositor who may have already purchased the land they are building on. I know that the lot has to be paid for before a design appointment is even accomplished. I believe also that there are circumstances where co-owners actually ask people like Goldwingnut to film and follow construction on their property.

Don't know the scope of th order. But so far, it appears the signage is only on the fencing around Eastport commercial space?

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Altavia

Don't know the scope of th order. But so far, it appears the signage is only on the fencing around Eastport commercial space?

I believe the scope is much wider and includes not only co owned properties but videos of property not even owned by the developer currently. I think all the videos were requested to be removed from You Tube.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by Normal

I believe the scope is much wider and includes not only co owned properties but videos not even owned by the developer currently. I think all the videos were requested to be removed from You Tube.

Anything that wide in scope and applying demands retrospectively seems like fantasy.

If the C&D implies "trespassing", signage and/or fencing are usually required.

[Tvflguy]

OK.

Per my edict you must obey this sign. If it works for The Villages, should work here on TOTV

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Normal

Another valid point is the developer doesn’t own all the property they want restrictions of filming on. Often they are in “joint ownership” with a depositor who may have already purchased the land they are building on. I know that the lot has to be paid for before a design appointment is even accomplished. I believe also that there are circumstances where co-owners actually ask people like Goldwingnut to film and follow construction on their property.

Because someone makes a "deposit" on a piece of land, that doesn't give them "co-ownership". At best and depending on the specific language of the contract, they may have an equitable interest, but that would be the extent of it. Knowing The Villages and how they operate their sales operation, I doubt "depositors" even have an equitable interest.

This entire discussion is much larger than folks are making it out to be. Not surprisingly, it was in front of the Supreme Court in 1946 (U.S. v. Causby, 1946). The ruling went in favor of the Petitioner and against the United States government.

Per U.S. v. Causby, 1946, we own the airspace over our homes, to the extent it's necessary for our use and enjoyment.

The FAA is really out of the discussion, as they don't regulate Class G Air Space. They also have the authority to regulate "airplanes" or flying devices. They have no jurisdiction over what the flying devices are doing (filming).

I noticed some other drone operator started a thread and included a video. He spent most of the video, claiming he's following FAA Guidelines. Big Deal. That's really a non-issue in this case. His argument is akin to someone saying, I was legally flying my airplane per FAA regulations, when I dropped that bomb, so I'm innocent. Apples & oranges. You can operate your automobile legally, but if you have stolen goods in it, you're still subject to prosecution.

Legally flying a drone, doesn't make what you're doing with your drone, inherently legal.

We are looking the fundamental principals of the 1st, 4th & 14th Amendments.

Consider this:

Police are not allowed to search your home or curtilage (areas around your home), using a drone. If they don't have a warrant, they can only search from "navigable air space" (above 500' for airplanes, 400' for drones). (California v. Ciraolo, 1986 & Florida v. Riley, 1989)

In (Florida v. Jardines, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that curtilage is part of the home, which means it has the same privacy protections as the interior of a home. Using a drone below 400' to search curtilage, is an unconstitutional search.

So what the drone proponents are saying, is the Police don't have the right to search your property, but they do? That's not the side of an argument that I'd want to be on.

I'm don't wish ill will on the drone operators, but I hope the Developer pushes this to the limits. It's about time, someone with deep pockets, stepped up to the plate and defended our right to reasonable privacy.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Because someone makes a "deposit" on a piece of land, that doesn't give them "co-ownership". At best and depending on the specific language of the contract, they may have an equitable interest, but that would be the extent of it. Know The Villages and how they operated their sales operation, I doubt "depositors" even have an equitable interest.

This entire discussion is much larger than folks are making it out to be. Not surprisingly, it was in front of the Supreme Court in 1946 (U.S. v. Causby, 1946). The ruling went in favor of the Petitioner and against the United States government.

Per U.S. v. Causby, 1946, we own the airspace over our homes, to the extent it's necessary for our use and enjoyment.

The FAA is really out of the discussion, as they don't regulate Class G Air Space. They also have the authority to regulate "airplanes" or flying devices. They have no jurisdiction over what the flying devices are doing (filming).

I noticed some other drone operator started a thread and included a video. He spent most of the video, claiming he's following FAA Guidelines. Big Deal. That's really a non-issue in this case. His argument is akin to someone saying, I was legally flying my airplane per FAA regulations, when I dropped that bomb, so I'm innocent. Apples & oranges. You can operate your automobile legally, but if you have stolen goods in it, you're still subject to prosecution.

Legally flying a drone, doesn't make what you're doing with your drone, inherently legal.

We are looking the fundamental principals of the 1st, 4th & 14th Amendments.

Consider this:

Police are not allowed to search your home or curtilage (areas around your home), using a drone. If they don't have a warrant, they can only search from "navigable air space" (above 500' for airplanes, 400' for drones). (California v. Ciraolo, 1986 & Florida v. Riley, 1989)

In (Florida v. Jardines, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that curtilage is part of the home, which means it has the same privacy protections as the interior of a home. Using a drone below 400' to search curtilage, is an unconstitutional search.

So what the drone proponents are saying, is the Police don't have the right to search your property, but they do? That's not the side of an argument that I'd want to be on.

I'm don't wish ill will on the drone operators, but I hope the Developer pushes this to the limits. It's about time, someone with deep pockets, stepped up to the plate and defended our right to reasonable privacy.

Will read the citations later.

It will be difficult to argue for a reasonable expectation of privacy when performing activities readily visible from public spaces. And sure, we all think of privacy in two dimensions but we live in a three-dimensional world. Don’t want people seeing you from the street? Put up a wall. Didn’t expect anyone to be looking from the sky? Bad assumption.

[Maker]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

So what the drone proponents are saying, is the Police don't have the right to search your property, but they do? That's not the side of an argument that I'd want to be on.

I'm don't wish ill will on the drone operators, but I hope the Developer pushes this to the limits. It's about time, someone with deep pockets, stepped up to the plate and defended our right to reasonable privacy.

When the government fails to respect constitutional rights, any evidence they collect is not admissible in court.
Flying a drone, as you described, is surveillance.
That is not what the drone pilots are doing here.

The "deep pockets" need to spend their money on changing the law. The actions they have already taken (C&D, demands, allegations of breaking the law, and financial threats) may get the developer in serious legal trouble.
Until the law changes, all the "what if" examples you raise are moot. What the drone pilots here have been doing are all 100% legal activities. Some may not like it, but that is the reality.

Lets also add some other places aerial photography is used, showing close up details, far more detailed than any of the videos our drone posters perform. And these are also all 100% legal activities.

• Real estate sales people post photos of the neighborhoods around houses for sale.
• Sumter County property tax web page show sky photos of every home, often including neighboring houses.
• Newspaper photos of events and activities often captures nearby homes.
• Surveying activities happen all the time. Used to document existing neighborhoods, and plan new.
• Television stations cover news events, traffic congestion, vehicle accidents... using drones and helicopters. Often remaining over the scenes showing continuous live video. Nearby properties, not involved, are also often shown.
• Utility companies fly over infrastructure and land to inspect existing lines, to determine routing for new areas, and troubleshoot problems. Commonly seen are helicopters recording power transmission lines, and the homes next to them.
  All the satellite based imaging companies continuously record the ground. Some have resolution that is highly detailed.

So if the developer "pushes this to the limits" then how do the lawmakers address the big picture? How do they allow one type of aerial photography, but not another; and not make it discriminatory? This is just a tiny list, there are plenty of others.

So show me one example of someone in their home where one of our drone operators zoomed their camera into the inside of their house? Good luck - because they don't do that.
Show me one example of someone naked in their pool where one of our drone operators zoomed their camera on them for a close up? Good luck - because they don't do that.
Making up "what if" for things that simply do not happen is irresponsible. The sky is not falling.