Reply to post: Re: the problem with drones...

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


Re: the problem with drones...

>>""secretly or surreptitiously uses" - but drones flying close enough to viably peer in windows are (currently) loud enough to be definitively not-surreptitious, making the Peeping Tom law inapplicable"

Well when that law was written there was no way to do such things without being there in person. So you would be secret and surreptitious. Now you can be secret and surreptitious even with a noisy drone because nobody knows who owns it or who is watching through its eyes.

Surreptitious (adj): 1.kept secret, especially because it would not be approved of:

The person is still being surreptitious even if the drone can be seen. And it's the person who gets charged with a crime, not the tool they use to do it.

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


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020