Meh. I'm of two minds on this.
On the one hand, I'm a firm supporter of gun ownership, gun use, and especially home defense.
On the other, I'm also a firm believer that you are responsible for the privacy you wish to enjoy. If it can be seen by someone who is not trespassing, you have no right to complain. (ex. if you walk around naked in front of bay windows, you have no right to complain if people stop and enjoy an eyeful.)
In this case, I have to ask the question: how high above a property's ground-level boundariesl does their jurisdiction extend? Does the height of the tallest permanent structure on that land matter? (I think it should, to cover, for example, skyscrapers.)
Does a person have jurisdiction over the airspace above their home at all? And if that is indeed the case, how much will that jurisdiction be abrogated in the name of public passage? For example, in the US, most homes' property lines actually extend out into the middle of the street, but you can't, say, go and erect a fence crossing the sidewalk and your half of the street. Whether or not you own the land (and hence are technically responsible for it, particularly for clearing it of snow and ice in winteritme,) you aren't allowed to, say, put up traffic cones to reserve the curbside parking area for yourself, nor are you permitted to prevent others from traversing the sidewalk.
Ultimately, I think people are just going to have to accept that elevated persons (or their agents, IE, their drones in this case,) can look onto their property, and they're going to have to treat the air space like they treat the sidewalk; either put up a big fence (in this case, a dome?) or just do without and accept that anything that can be seen from an elevated point of view is still something that's in plain sight, and hence, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
That said, the drone operators definitely should not have been flying low and/or slow enough that some hick with a shotgun could take it down. They were in fuckin' Kentucky! Folks 'round those parts tend to be good shots.
WRT the question of how high above someone's property their jurisdiction ends, I dunno. Perhaps 25m above the height of the highest part of the tallest permanent structure on the land. You definitely shouldn't have to tolerate someone buzzing your tower with a drone, but at the same time, you shouldn't have the right to go full paranoid arsehole and shoot down anything that crosses the property line.