back to article Bloke sues dad who shot down his drone – and why it may decide who owns the skies

A lawsuit filed against a man who shot down his neighbor's drone might define for the first time who owns the skies in America. Back in June, 47-year-old William Merideth shot down the camera-carrying $1,800 quadrocopter with a shotgun while it was hovering over his house in Hillview, Kentucky, claiming that he feared it was …

Page:

    1. Magani
      Joke

      Re: Practicalities

      "But when a drone goes through... your precious Corsa..."

      Pay rates for airframe drivers seemed to have slipped in the UK, then?

      1. Dabooka

        Re: Practicalities

        As long as it's written off, owner of said Corsa would probably be rather pleased.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Practicalities

      "precious Corsa"

      Does not compute.

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        Re: Practicalities

        I love my corsa! because its worth so little it dosent matter if anything happens to it , including drone strike

    3. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Practicalities

      Until they can safely land a drone with a technical problem, then I can't see it becoming reality.

      So at least some of their payload will have to be taken up by an effective auto deployed and autonomous parachute system and they would be required to fly at a minimum altitude for effective parachute deployment except when they are above their take off and landing areas where they will use a vertical ascent/descent.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hysterical

    They are only drones whilst in the air.

    Once they're on the ground, they're Varmints - literally a Low-Down Varmint - and you're allowed to blast those.

  2. Mark 85

    A big part of the problem would seem be the camera, or looking at the ground. If you're flying an R/C airplane, watching the plane fly, controlling it, etc. is the name of the game. With drones... it's obviously the video from the drone that's the big part.

    So I may own the ground and the FCC may own the air. But who regulates the camera? If the drone were just something you'd fly and zoom around like the R/C aircraft, no problem. Photographing what's on the ground (like a sunbathing neighbor) is something else.

    These two need to be blended somewhere. Once upon a time, it was common courtesy that you didn't intrude on the neighbor's privacy. Now it seems the norm. Privacy from all sectors, tech, government, and now the neighbors is becoming hard to find.

  3. Jos V

    Missed it?

    There was a drone introduced at CES, capable of carrying a person. Our flying cars are coming!

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/technology/ces-2016-ehang-drone/index.html

    Did the Reg miss this? I think this would really keep the ball rolling on the discussion about using airspace, if it ever flies ;-)

    1. Boothy

      Re: Missed it?

      The Reg seem to have completely missed CES this time, which is a shame, plenty of stories and tech to discuss there at the moment.

      Would have made for quite a few good forum discussions, an opportunity missed.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: Missed it?

        They have been too busy writing snarky Democrat political comments in to all their articles and silencing the two remaining somewhat conservative contributors, Page and Worstall.

        1. LucreLout

          Re: Missed it?

          Yes, quite how Worstalls services were no longer required while presumably still forking out for the wrong-headed bilge Potty trots out every month is beyond me.

          #BBW

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: Missed it?

            >>"Yes, quite how Worstall's services were no longer required while presumably still forking out for the wrong-headed bilge Potty trots out every month is beyond me."

            Yeah, Worstall wrote stuff I'd disagree with very strongly sometimes, but he can at least support his arguments and has an interesting take on things. Potts has previously tried to find out the real identity of posters who's posts he didn't like and has expressed more than clearly how if he met me in real life the only thing stopping him from assaulting me would be if there was a risk of legal consequence. And he took the time to emphasize this wasn't just Internet trash talk but that he'd genuinely like to give me a kicking. Worse, I find his articles tiresome.

            1. LucreLout

              Re: Missed it?

              Potts has previously tried to find out the real identity of posters who's posts he didn't like and has expressed more than clearly how if he met me in real life the only thing stopping him from assaulting me would be if there was a risk of legal consequence. And he took the time to emphasize this wasn't just Internet trash talk but that he'd genuinely like to give me a kicking.

              Wow, that is outrageous. If that is the fullness of the situation then he has no place writing articles here or anywhere else.

              I'm sure you & I have disagreed on a number of things, but I've no desire to unmask you nor would I wish you any harm. Disagreement is a fundamental requirement of debate, and debate is the purpose of the comments section.

              Despite the generally lefty slant of El Reg, I've always taken the view that commentards were marginally (Marginally!!) a cut above other sites, and slightly more civilized and educated [1] in their treatment of others.

              1 - I mean as in facts & citations appear more often than cup sizes and fart jokes. I don't mean we more degrees than posters, though I suppose that may be possible....

  4. bill 30

    But your honor....

    I was only playing tennis... honest, the machine must have moved

    http://www.strictlytennis.net/lobsterballmachine.htm

  5. Grikath

    easy...

    You hang a camera platform low enough over or near enough private property containing sunbathing people of any denomination or age to be in ballistic range of whatever is at hand, for long enough to actually make pictures, you're going to suffer the loss of said camera platform.

    And count your lucky stars when you're not getting a short, percussive lesson in propriety to bring the message home.

    But I'm probably an old-fashioned troglodite.

    1. Tom 13
      Thumb Up

      Re: But I'm probably an old-fashioned troglodite.

      That's okay. I for one am convinced the world needs more old-fashioned troglodites like us.

  6. John Tserkezis

    This David Boggs character has something really wrong with him.

    See, he's suing a guy who, we have proved through a variety of docuements, has a shotgun, isn't afraid to use it, and isn't taking crap from anyone.

    1. aelfheld

      Re: This David Boggs character has something really wrong with him.

      Can't fix stupid.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Should be interesting watching the field events when the next American Olympics comes round if anything above ground and weighing over a pound is the benchark.

  8. promacjoe2

    It is one thing to fly a drone over your own property. It is another to take a drone, equipped with a camera and fly it over someone else's property. Clearly the intent was to take pictures of that property and anything else on the property. That is an invasion of privacy and anything under treetop level +100 feet, should be considered trespassing as well.

    someone mentioned that they had a camera equipped drone And they could not determine the difference between men and women at a very short distance. I don't know what kind of camera you have, but it must be very low resolution, And it must be equipped with a very poor lens. My mother's Nikon cool pics camera, Has a 16 megapixel sensor and a lens equivalent to I believe 1800 mm. with that camera set up, you definitely should be able to distinguish a man from a woman at even 1000 feet. And cameras are only getting more powerful. Even some camera phones have a 40+ megapixel sensor. A new camera has just been announced that has a 100 megapixel sensor. We have a local TV station here that has a helicopter equipped with a camera that can see what's happening even 5 miles away. And that camera was first used in the 90s. And has been upgraded to high-definition. Fortunately they know better than to use this camera maliciously. and I saw a video a while back of a camera system that could take a video of a 10 square-mile area, and you could definitely tell a man from a woman, and even if that Person was smoking a cigarette. The camera system was being developed for the military, For use in drones.

    I recently viewed my house on Google maps, and I can tell that my yard man was cutting the grass, and I could tell where he had cut and what needed to be cut.

    don't fool yourself, cameras are getting very good at producing high-quality images.

    if we do not make laws now, it will git way out of hand very quickly.

    And by the way, here in the US, there is a law in many states that governs the focal length of the lens used to take pictures of someone's property without their permission. Normal lenses are allowed, but telephoto lenses in the extreme range are not. You'll have to look up the laws in your state to see If it applies to you, and what that focal length is.

    in this case, the court has already found that the guy was in his rights to shoot the drone down.

    That means that the courts has already decided that the drone was trespassing, in a very worrying if not malicious fashion. It remains to be seen whether the lawsuit has any merit or not.

    1. Charles 9

      "That means that the courts has already decided that the drone was trespassing, in a very worrying if not malicious fashion. It remains to be seen whether the lawsuit has any merit or not."

      The problem is that the drone is large enough to fall under the FAA's mandate, and their mandate attaches to any and all aircraft, manned or unmanned, bigger than about a foot in wingspan or diameter, regardless of its location within US territorial airspace. The suit (which is being filed in federal court) is claiming this means the FAA's jurisdiction takes precedence, trumping the earlier state court ruling.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: is claiming this means the FAA's jurisdiction takes precedence

        In my professional experience, I've found lawyers lie a lot, especially when making initial claims in court.

        The FAA may have precedence for planes, but not for privacy. Also, when you appeal, you don't get to redetermine facts. Only the initial hearing can do that.

        After checking just the first paragraph of the filing, I think the case gets tossed. Boggs was clearly not "traversing" the airspace. He was spying on them and frankly given the noise a drone makes, harassing them.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Interesting....

      Just what photos are you taking with your mothers Nikon Coolpix?

      I find it interesting that you know that you can "be able to distinguish a man from a woman at even 1000 feet." and feel that you need to look up the laws regarding extreme telephoto lenses, as well as researching cameras to take high quality images, 40MP camera phone.. etc.

      I also find it interesting that you infer that somebody (who probably has a fairly/extremely wide angle lens, as is usual with multi-rotors) had a obvious intent to take photos of the property and anything on it. Not projecting at all are we?

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Interesting....

        He didn't have specific intent to photograph the property, but everything under the drone's path as part of an aerial film. He had increased height to 278 feet when it was shot down, and the property was one that was being crossed as the thing transited from one place to another.

        I probably could have got a as good an image of the property from Google Earth Pro.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: Interesting....

          >>"He had increased height to 278 feet when it was shot down"

          Correction. He claims he had increased height to 278 feet. Whether or not he did is another matter, but it contradicts statements by neighbours and family. And whilst I'm not an expert, shooting down a drone with shot (police records show the ammo is #6 shot) at 92 yards straight upwards, seems something of a feet to me.

          He did produce a map on his iPad he says is the path, but I shouldn't have to explain on a tech news site the ease of editing a text file (which is typically how drone telemetry is stored) and showing it to people a few months later.

        2. Tom 13

          Re: He didn't have specific intent to photograph the property

          Oh, that's an outright lie. The drone was hovering over the property. That's proven by the fact that Meredith had time to retrieve his shotgun and shoot it down after he saw it.

          1. RubberJohnny

            Re: He didn't have specific intent to photograph the property

            That's proven by the fact that Meredith had time to retrieve his shotgun and shoot it down after he saw it.

            How do we know he had to go and retrieve his shotgun? He is an American yokel FFS. And anyway, had he seen the drone flying in the general area he could have got the gun ready and waited for it to come within range.

            However, having shot trap down the line before, even with a long choked down barrel and heavy shot, 80 metres is a bit of a stretch.

      2. promacjoe2

        Re: Interesting....

        I find it interesting That someone with so Little knowledge of a subject, Will comment as if they knew everything about it. I admit, I do not know everything about the subject, but I am an amateur photographer as is my brother and sister. as such, we need to know what the limits are within the law. And I study everything I can about the subject, so I do not infringe on someone else's rights. Something that every amateur photographer as well as any professional should do. As far as my mother's Nikon cool pics camera, I don't use it. I use a Pentax K3. A professional grade camera. My longest lens is 500 mm. The effective focal length is 750 mm. Using that lens, I can take pictures of deer 50 to 75 yards away, and be able to count the hairs in the ear. I use the Nikon cool pics, because it was light and would be easy to mount on the drone. and with an effective focal length equal to 1800 mm, You should easily be able to tell the difference between a man and woman it 1000 feet. that is unless your drone vibrate so violently that it would blur the image. In that case I suggest you balance the props, to reduce vibration.

        And as far as the intent goes, if he did not intend to take pictures, why did he have a camera mounted on his drone. and if he hovered over the house long enough for the guy to run inside get his shotgun and then come out and shoot it out of the air, he obviously was not just crossing the property to take pictures of someone else's property. Besides if he was going to take pictures of someone else's property, he should've taken off and landed from that property, And stay within the confines of that property.

        the arguments that I have read, and I do not know all the details, just does not make sense to me.

        Neighbors communicate with each other, they don't spy on each other.

        maybe you should find a good psychiatrist to help you with your trust issues. and stop attacking people and insinuating that they might be doing something wrong. It's just not good manners.

        and by the way, I don't have a camera phone that has a memory card in it, so I cannot use it to take pictures. and I don't intend to install a memory card. and the reason I know about the 40+ megapixel camera phone, theregister wrote an article about it several years ago.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Your mum's Nikon, a large purpose-designed stabilised camera turret built into a TV station's helicopter, and a small-CCD camera strapped to a small drone vibrating away like a hammer drill, are very, very different beasts when it comes to the image quality they can deliver.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The smaller drones may not have the same quality of some cameras, but most drones are designed to get good enough quality images or videos. The on-board camera is not just a navigation device, it's an image capture device.

      Even a Parrot can deliver a video good enough to satisfy a peeper. He's not interested in high quality images, his usually interested in the "emotions" given by the very act of peeping.

  10. wolfetone Silver badge

    The Dad Was Well Within His Right To Shoot The Drone

    So I fully expect that the American justice system will rule in favour of the owner of the drone, and the Dad will be found guilty.

    1. aelfheld

      Re: The Dad Was Well Within His Right To Shoot The Drone

      Unfortunately, you may well be right.

  11. Edward Phillips

    UK Law

    In the UK, in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] 1 QB 479 it was held that a (manned) plane overflying properties (once) and taking a photo (one) was not trespass (they were selling the owners photos of their houses from the air, in pre-Google days). It overturned the previous (13th century) maxim Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell) for the air, saying instead that property owners only have rights over the air above their property to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land. There are earlier cases - in 1815 it was decided that floating across land in a balloon wasn't trespass, nor was firing a bullet across it (unless it landed or hit an animal).

    The court did say that if a claimant was subjected to the harassment of constant surveillance from the air, accompanied by the photographing of his every activity then that would be a "monstrous invasion of privacy" and an actionable nuisance (for which damages would be given). Nowadays the Data Protection Act 1998 rights would also apply.

    Overhanging cranes can constitute trespass and it is common for crane operators to get a licence from neighbouring owners.

    More generally, the relevant Air Navigation Order 2009 (SI 2009/3015) imposes rules on flying in congested areas or within 50m of any person. Breach of the ANO is a criminal offence for which people have been prosecuted.

    s.76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 imposes liability for any damage caused on the ground (if the drone crashes into your greenhouse). That was for manned planes but it is thought to extend to drones. Also Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 requires all commercial air operators (including drones) to have insurance. Private model aeroplanes have an exception.

    1. John Arthur
      Headmaster

      Re: UK Law

      I have given you a thumbs-up but being a pedant I couldn't resist pointing out it is 'infernos', not 'inferos'.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: UK Law

        Wikipedia appears to think both are correct. Can't vouch for that though, I don't speak Latin.

  12. BurnT'offering

    FAA owns above 400 feet?

    So, if I build a building taller than 400ft, do I have to register the top floors as an aircraft?

    1. DocJames
      Joke

      Re: FAA owns above 400 feet?

      Yes. You'll get a callsign and need to file a flight plan. Every so often air traffic control will ask if you're still there.

    2. Fink-Nottle

      Re: FAA owns above 400 feet?

      The 400ft rule applies to a lot of technical stuff, however when it comes to crime & violence such as piracy or shooting at FAA registered craft, the law defines the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.

      Through this provision the FAA could claim "special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States" for all registered drones anywhere in the world (or a foreign owned drone whose flightpath lands in the US and certain other cases) for the period starting upon completion of "preflight preparation of an aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until 24 hours after any landing".

      So, no matter where you are in the world, think twice about shooting a drone or assaulting it's crew. If it's registered with the FAA you'd be committing a Federal crime and could look forward to some extraordinary rendition fun!

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hosed by water

    No lasting evidence

    1. foo_bar_baz
      Holmes

      Re: Hosed by water

      Except for the film footage from the drone.

  14. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

    i dont even seem to own my land at ground level - the council wont give me planning permission for anything

  15. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

    I guess " You cant take the sky from me" isnt true after all :(

  16. Ian K
    Gimp

    "and why it may decide who owns the skies"

    "Take my love, take my land. Take me where I cannot stand.

    I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me[1]."

    [1] Unless you're the FAA, in which case you'll at least give it a go.

    1. BoldMan

      Re: "and why it may decide who owns the skies"

      Gorram!

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    FAA

    Not withstanding my always having supported the guy shooting the thing down; I've long considered the FAA responsible for hundreds, if not thousands of deaths by not mandating aircraft component design changes anything like soon enough, or being lax about implementing them, the most credible explanation for which being what they care/cared about are the profits of Boeing/McDonnel Douglas.

    Shame it wasn't an FAA drone.

    1. Gary Bickford

      Re: FAA

      I could just as easily argue the opposite - the excessive cost and delay involved in FAA (and FCC) approval has resulted in many newer advancements not being available, or too expensive to bring to market, or too expensive for normal people to buy. Case in point - 30 years ago $2500 aircraft radios had terrible sound quality and not very good reception or reliability compared with $100 CB radios, largely because the amortised cost of approvals by both agencies when even one resistor was changed on the circuit worked out to over $1000 (1980 dollars) per unit - after development costs. From what I've read even today much or most aircraft equipment is using seriously old technology for the same reason.

      In truth, there is a happy medium somewhere.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: FAA

        Not when it comes to safety in a vehicle that weighs many tons, operates at over 10,000 meters most of the time in air pressures too low to breathe, and have been known to get pretty finnicky. The primary reason for all the rigamarole is electromagnetic interference; there's a constant concern even one little adjustment will snowball, cause an airliner to crash, kill hundreds of people, and create lots of finger-pointing. Engineering may be the art of making do with as little as possible, but what price a life? How do you accomplish the goals of an engineer when lost lives are not acceptable?

        1. Vic

          Re: FAA

          The primary reason for all the rigamarole is electromagnetic interference; there's a constant concern even one little adjustment will snowball, cause an airliner to crash

          Nope. The biggest concern is interference with the magnetic compass[1], which has always been the primary navigation instrument. Since the advent of GNSS, that might be going away...

          Vic.

          [1] The aircraft I fly are have placards to tell you the measured compass error when the radio is switched on.

    2. Stevie

      Re: FAA

      FAA has no enforcement powers. Your rage is better directed at the aerospace industries that underbuild or the airlines that undermaintain.

  18. Commswonk

    Aye, there's the rub...

    promacjoe2 wrote if we do not make laws now, it will get way out of hand very quickly.

    Much as it is doing in respect of the wretched IoT, which seems to be racing ahead with goverment support, at least in the UK. OTOH legislation introduced with undue haste is likely to result in so many anomalies and loopholes that any law thus enacted is either useless from the outset or becomes so very shortly therafter, bringing the law (and the Law, if you see the distinction) into disrepute.

    Technology is moving so fast that any legislative limitations on its use are likely to be so far behind it that the exercise becomes pointless to the extent of being futile. Note that I said technology is "moving", not progressing or developing because some "developments" are not inherently advantageous to the human species (or even others, come to think of it) if only because we seem to be too willing to be its slaves, not its masters.

    Trying to write a law covering drones that would provide proper discrimination between snooping (actual or potential) and Jeff Bezos' plan to use drones for Amazon deliveries could prove very troublesome... which is not to say that I necessarily see any serious merit in his plan either; gimmickry dressed up as an essential to modern life.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like