This channel is HEAVILY Censored..... ☹️ In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote: "I Disapprove of What You Say, but I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" ~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall ~ "This quotation - which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself - is often cited to describe the Principle of Freedom of Speech."
(12 min in)- "Here's the bad news" Where was the good news? There was the minute or so about the couple with a privacy fence. 2 o 3 min of comercial & 13 min of rights violating rulings, policies, procedures, practices, and even laws!!!!! Are we (by we I mean yall)so used to rights violations being the norm, we don't even question obvipus rights and or oath violations
@@SHANECatLovinActivistHistorian it's do as I say not as I do, we the people should have more rights with the drones. There's no telling how much evidence they use against you that came from spying with a drone they sure don't say we gathered evidence with our drone !
@ronalddaub9740 I agree they already push the law as far as they can . When your charged it's how they phrase it on how bad the charge is.one word could get you 10yrs
If flying over 400 ft and is approved by the local air traffic controller, it'll legal. Since it is illegal to use those over 400ft, it is against the law. This TH-camr is clueless on actual laws. He's talking about a subject that he knows noting about.
I can understand your feelings but at the same time unless your property is extremely large, people from outside your property could look in and see you as well. If there's a house/building next to yours somebody could sit up on the roof or a balcony all day and observe what's going on in the area, including your sunbathing. You would feelI invaded but legally it wouldn't be an invasion.
@@punktalley lol it's a private backyard with privacy 8 ft fencing. Only way to see is overhead. Which the drone went right over me and paused. Unacceptable.
TH-cam is mad at me and keeps deleting my comments. Why, because I don't support their shareholders. My military friends will assist me from here on out to stop this. They allow speech to spread that I 💯 % support and have never been relieved of my 5th general order.
Okay, we can't shoot down a drone, but is it possible to nondestructively blind it with a high wattage spot light? Modern CMOS light gathering arrays are not prone to burnout like the previous vidicon tubes, so there is little chance of damage, and if you project light spectrum from far ultraviolet to low infrared it would saturate the imaging sensor, effectively blinding it. This would be especially effective in municipalities using drones not registered with the FAA as they could not charge someone with, say, obstruction, without revealing the illegal drone's use. Even if they are registered you are not required to assist in an investigation and it could be argued that blinding it amounts to preventing unwarranted invasion of privacy. In effect, you are creating a "light fence" that the drone cannot see over.
Sure, that's fine. Unlike the radio spectrum, there are no laws against shining lights. Moreover, since you aren't shining the laser at a human eye, using a green laser to permanently damage a flying camera should be lawful. I would argue that damaging the camera is not damaging the aircraft, since a drone with no camera can still fly.
@pacificostudios SCOTUS has ruled on shining lights at cameras, but it's against law enforcement on civilians that get violented multiple times daily.
If you give the authorities an inch they will take a mile absolutely not they should not be able to do this it's basically illegal search and seizure know where they season anything no but they're on your property with the camera and that is illegal search they're searching your property with a camera and that is illegal
I understand even insurance companies use drones to surveil home properties to scan for unkempt yards and use that information to deny insurance coverage.
If it's not controlled air space and your authorized to fly ie your drone is under the weight limit for registration requirements and I guess meets the new air id requirements I would assume it's the same as recording with your phone or a camera the same police station?
To be fair, when I've asked the "birds aren't real" people i saw at a gas station, they said, "No, we don't really think it's 'all' birds, but it makes enough of an impact as a slogan that people will start looking closer to see if SOME aren't." Made sense.
That was in May and..."the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed that the Tennessee Constitution bars game wardens from conducting warrantless searches of private property." The case pertained to TWRA Game Wardens entering private property and placing game cameras. It effectively killed the "Open Fields" doctrine in TN that TWRA had been using for years. The ruling was in relation to the TN state constitution. The US Supreme Court would have to make a ruling on a case for it to be nationwide.
@i-m-bossride "the state of Tennessee" isn't what you think it is. It doesn't have physically defined borders with dirt, trees, people, etc 9n it. It's a business organization. It's not the same as the state known as Tennessee. Also, why would anyone care what "SCOTUS"rules on? As an American, the only "supreme court" that matters are a jury of your peers, drawn from your community. However, I'm going to assume you claim to be a U.S. citizen and/or a citizen of the United States, yes? If so, then yeah you should probably listen to what your owners tell you to do.
@@craigrobbins3540 Close - during the cold war in the 1960s they did outfit a cat with a mic and transmitter and planned on releasing it into a public area to eavesdrop. The only thing they head was the sound of a car horn, the minute they let the kitty out, he got hit by a taxi. $22 million down the crapper. Ref: Operation Acoustic Kitty. Also Hitler was not alive when the CIA existed - during his time they were called the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) National Security Act of 1947 turned them into the CIA, though there was a 2 year period between the disbanding of the OSS and the formation of the CIA.
Has to stay within certain power limits, and yes that's legal.. but how you do it isn't that... It's to deauthentication of the Wi-Fi packets being used.. If they're using a cell signal for operation, they're violating multiple laws... Depending on the factors at play
Need a ark and an antenna, maybe a shield to focus the beam . Could also be done with parts from a microwave , could be dangerous tho would not attempt if understanding of the subject it limited . Wifi 2.4 and 5.8ghz jammers are available online. And old satellite dish would be a good reflector to direct a signal in a small beam.
Don't take Mt word for it. But lookup Fed-Ex spying for the government I believe it like 40,000 of their delivery trucks already have them in their trucks..a bunch of BS so much for living in a free country!!!
If you shot down a drone that looked like an eagle, would you be arrested for shooting down a drone or shooting down an eagle which is also illegal (and a felony too I think)?
Are if they take the drums and fly up close to your bedroom window and see you when you are changing your clothes I know there is a lot of good cops but there is a lot of weird police officers 😔💔
They can look through the side of your house and get a face recognition of who's in the house and where they are what are you showing us so far is nothing new they've had it out for 35 years
I actually build these little things. It's pretty weird how the rules are currently laid out, and often times quite stupid. The latest lawmaking that they're trying to push is known as Remote ID, which they expect anything weighing over 250 grams to have a GPS lock and emit a registered serial number, location, and pilot location. Of course, this rule has a huge number of holes in it, and the hardware is stupidly expensive compared to everything else on the machine. To date, I think I've found one person who plans to comply. This is out of hundreds. We feel like we're getting screwed for something that helps nobody, and hurts us.
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 I say that they're still pushing for it because basically nobody has actually bothered with it yet. There has been such low interest in compliance that there wasn't even enough stock in place on their first try. That's why they had to delay it for six months.
I believe the FAA laws regarding drones limit the altitude above 400 ft. when going over private residences, anything below 400 ft. is a violation of privacy.
That is not correct. In most circumstances the FAA altitude limit is 400 feet maximum. Drones (the small ones that we're thinking of in relation to this video) can only fly above 400' if they are within 400 feet of a structure and not in controlled airspace.
@@windrider65 While I wouldn't expect the FAA to prosecute a remote pilot who was working for the government they are regulated under the same law. 14 CFR part 107
FAA rules on drones say 400 ft is highest you can fly. Most drone operators will not fly low about a house as they understand privacy concerns and don't want trouble. I had a neighbor ask if I was flying one low over his house. I told him I wouldn't do that but it wasn't me. I suspect it was the power company. He talked about shooting it down and I told him it's a federal crime.
Theu used to go higher back when they first started this why I got ridded of my drones because of the Nazis laws.Its not fun anymore it sucks its a money scam since drones price ate higher than they worth.Its sad.Who wants low 400 feet if they can go higher. I understand because its a safty thing for airline so on but it sucks freedom is gone when it first started. This why I quite gaming befor the scam s started they went most digital scamy downloads.Now its scalping money time.😅
Air rights typically extend 1000 feet above a property before the FAA gets a default easement for aircraft. Small drones are banned from going above 400ft. So, by default a drone would be encroaching or trespassing if it flew over private property. It seems like the law is pretty clear cut, it's just that a court opinion hasn't explicitly reinforced the law yet.
couple years ago my oldest daughter notice there were drone flying over head of her home, cousin and aunt's home. one was even close to her aunt's home. they had like blue and/or red flashing lights. this went on every night and not sure even to this day why they were over their places
Just think that now drones have high energy beam weapons on them. Sound familiar? Like the sentinels from Halos guilty spark mission. What if Halo was the future of our reality, and we are actually the Forerunners who created all the high tech.
Well, if you're in aviation, you'd better study up and learn what the FAA actually says, because even for an airplane or helicopter, it's a lot more complicated than that. And for drones, they are allowed in the opposite of the places airplanes are allowed, so that they don't hit airplanes.
The first question is how do you know who owns the drone? Didn't the supreme court ruled you own the air space above your property and can shoot down drones that enter your space?
No the Supreme Court did not rule that you can shoot at drones, or any other aircraft. Weather people technically own the airspace or not is irrelevant. It was decided a long time ago that the airspace is a public domain that anybody can use according to FAA regulations. Even if you own that airspace, you cannot regulate it.
Since drones are legally considered to be aircraft, and therefore have certain flyover rights afforded to aircraft, I would like to see the courts also clarify that they must conform to FAA-enforced minimum altitude regulations, as follows: § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Hmmm - seems to be a conflict here. Can't fly above 400 feet, but can't fly below 1000 feet (of the highest point) in congested areas....seems like a loophole for city dwellers.
So called drones AREN'T AIRCRAFT. That's the issue everyone is having. The FAA can't just claim they are aircraft by redefined in the definition... This was just taken up with the supreme Court.. I've posted this countless times on this thread that this so called lawyer has no idea what he's talking about on this subject matter. He's making a TH-cam video for clicks... Stating caselaw of cases that had bad lawyers. Then not telling you the full details of the real case
91 regulates manned aircraft and part 107 regulates unmanned aircraft. You're reading the wrong set of rules. Also most localities have voyeurism laws that protect you from "peeping Tom's" which would apply when non-police drones are being invasive to your sense of privacy. Under part 107 a drone is still considered an aircraft and you cannot interfere with its flight without facing legal consequences.
with the ring cameras the police have access to them should be illegal. so insurance company's are using these drones without your permission. By the way, they have the tech to see through your walls now, so what is to stop them from using them?
If you live in one of the States needing a warrant, does the state then need to provide land owner with a copy of warrant Before execution of warrant??
There is no distance that restricts drones. You do not own the airspace above your home. Not even one inch. Period. They can fly over one inch and it's perfectly legal. And if you shoot it down,you are being recorded shooting down a private aircraft. Not smart.
Glad to know this. Founders? What would they say? Seriously! Full Confession: I was on back porch. Swatted at a large fly that landed on picnic table. Flushed it. Turns out it was a warrantless drone. I’m now on a list. Have hired an attorney. Told to remain silent if asked by police if I have ever stated “I wouldn’t hurt a fly”
That’s a little government over however if it’s being used in the right way it might be OK but if they are within a mile of your home above it within that mile it is against the law your tress passing that’s real estate law base
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
🌏Get NordVPN 2Y plan + 4 months extra + up to 20Gb Saily data here ➼ nordvpn.com/hamptonlaw
It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee!
This channel is HEAVILY Censored..... ☹️
In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote:
"I Disapprove of What You Say, but I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It"
~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall ~
"This quotation - which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself - is often cited to describe the Principle of Freedom of Speech."
(12 min in)-
"Here's the bad news"
Where was the good news?
There was the minute or so about the couple with a privacy fence.
2 o 3 min of comercial & 13 min of rights violating rulings, policies, procedures, practices, and even laws!!!!!
Are we (by we I mean yall)so used to rights violations being the norm, we don't even question obvipus rights and or oath violations
The answer is yes you can. Just don't get caught
So they can fly 1 foot above the ground?
Beautiful segue to the Nord VPN commercial. 🙂
and yet we see the cops go nuts on people who are out with a camera
Cuz they bay-bays.
Ftp
Word
@@raswerdeladno, their baby's. We're all children kid.😂heehee lol I'm messing with u
@@SHANECatLovinActivistHistorian it's do as I say not as I do, we the people should have more rights with the drones. There's no telling how much evidence they use against you that came from spying with a drone they sure don't say we gathered evidence with our drone !
Yes to all they will abuse it in every way they can
And even in ways we can't imagine yet.
Yes they will! And we are suppose to believe they didn’t use drones at the Trump rally ?
@@dawnhoughton4533they already are.
@ronalddaub9740 I agree they already push the law as far as they can . When your charged it's how they phrase it on how bad the charge is.one word could get you 10yrs
I can see the cops landing these drones on private property and using that as an excuse to trespass to receive them.
I hear you have a gas leak on your property right next to your meth lab, Daz. Public safety and all that, you know.
@@TheCaptainSlappy Excuse me it ain't no meth lab officer, them white crystals right there is high grade white phosphorus.
I have giant pine trees. If it lands in there, they had better be able to climb up and get it
@@MCcadet04 Please do. And remember...felons can't own guns to shoot down drones monitoring your fenty operation.
As a nude sunbather in my fenced in back yard and have had government drones fly over, I DO consider this an invasion of my privacy.
If flying over 400 ft and is approved by the local air traffic controller, it'll legal. Since it is illegal to use those over 400ft, it is against the law. This TH-camr is clueless on actual laws. He's talking about a subject that he knows noting about.
So, uh
... where do ya live...?
😅
😮
I can understand your feelings but at the same time unless your property is extremely large, people from outside your property could look in and see you as well.
If there's a house/building next to yours somebody could sit up on the roof or a balcony all day and observe what's going on in the area, including your sunbathing.
You would feelI invaded but legally it wouldn't be an invasion.
If you can be see from public you need to put your clothes back on.
@@punktalley lol it's a private backyard with privacy 8 ft fencing. Only way to see is overhead. Which the drone went right over me and paused. Unacceptable.
Checks and balances has almost gone out the door.
They write checks and we get stuck with the balance
@@ZombiePanda1776 True
All these neet exceptions were made by a conservative supreme court, including qualified immunity.
Sounds like warrantless surveillance 1:19
Reverse Ono is except able.
Reverse Ono is acceptable.
TH-cam is mad at me and keeps deleting my comments. Why, because I don't support their shareholders. My military friends will assist me from here on out to stop this. They allow speech to spread that I 💯 % support and have never been relieved of my 5th general order.
It is
Okay, we can't shoot down a drone, but is it possible to nondestructively blind it with a high wattage spot light? Modern CMOS light gathering arrays are not prone to burnout like the previous vidicon tubes, so there is little chance of damage, and if you project light spectrum from far ultraviolet to low infrared it would saturate the imaging sensor, effectively blinding it. This would be especially effective in municipalities using drones not registered with the FAA as they could not charge someone with, say, obstruction, without revealing the illegal drone's use. Even if they are registered you are not required to assist in an investigation and it could be argued that blinding it amounts to preventing unwarranted invasion of privacy. In effect, you are creating a "light fence" that the drone cannot see over.
I like your thinking
Sure, that's fine. Unlike the radio spectrum, there are no laws against shining lights. Moreover, since you aren't shining the laser at a human eye, using a green laser to permanently damage a flying camera should be lawful. I would argue that damaging the camera is not damaging the aircraft, since a drone with no camera can still fly.
How did you learn about the secrets of infrared, and stop giving the info away so openly.
@pacificostudios SCOTUS has ruled on shining lights at cameras, but it's against law enforcement on civilians that get violented multiple times daily.
@@Keepskatinsilence peasant knowledge is power
If you give the authorities an inch they will take a mile absolutely not they should not be able to do this it's basically illegal search and seizure know where they season anything no but they're on your property with the camera and that is illegal search they're searching your property with a camera and that is illegal
When you give authority an inch they become a ruler.
@@Gr8fullyDeadHead; YUP been telling people that for 50 years
best grow your weed inside for now on...... like the hydroponics ppl do...lol
@@tarpanc34I thought weed was legal now. I don't use it my brain doesn't need any help being dumber 😂😂
I understand even insurance companies use drones to surveil home properties to scan for unkempt yards and use that information to deny insurance coverage.
Report them to the FAA for illegal drone flyover.
The County Assessor here uses them to surveil property to decide tax rates.
Ugh, I hate it all.
They do
All of this should be banned, the only exception is if there is a probable cause, and there is a warrant.
The fact they use taxidermied birds is crazy work
"I was cleaning my shotgun and it went off!" Honest.
@@williammorrill946 that sounds like a valid secure to me!
Are drones a protected species? Pull! 😂😂😂
Same thing happened with my crossbow
You still get a ticket for dislodging a weapon. Possibly might even get an early morning wrong address SWAT raid.
@@dwainmcwilliams2043 depends on where you live and/or if you get caught.
What if I try to spy on police departments like this?
You'll be arrested faster than you can say "I can't breeve!"
I'll protect you 🎉
Actually police property is public property so privacy laws shouldn’t apply. Lol
You would have a youtube channel
If it's not controlled air space and your authorized to fly ie your drone is under the weight limit for registration requirements and I guess meets the new air id requirements I would assume it's the same as recording with your phone or a camera the same police station?
To be fair, when I've asked the "birds aren't real" people i saw at a gas station, they said, "No, we don't really think it's 'all' birds, but it makes enough of an impact as a slogan that people will start looking closer to see if SOME aren't." Made sense.
I had a bird drone land on my roof when I had the,dogs in the yard. I have,never,seen one before, so I jyst,stared at it.
@@lisabruner7018 I actually saw a dragonfly one. I thought I was imagining it until it suddenly dropped to the ground and sparked. 😳
I thought the Institute for Justice just fought the "open field doctrine" and won.
That relates to cops walking around on your property that’s outside of your “curtilage”
In the state of Tennessee, yes. SCOTUS, though, has not ruled on the issue since they first created it.
That was in May and..."the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed that the Tennessee Constitution bars game wardens from conducting warrantless searches of private property." The case pertained to TWRA Game Wardens entering private property and placing game cameras. It effectively killed the "Open Fields" doctrine in TN that TWRA had been using for years. The ruling was in relation to the TN state constitution. The US Supreme Court would have to make a ruling on a case for it to be nationwide.
@i-m-bossride "the state of Tennessee" isn't what you think it is. It doesn't have physically defined borders with dirt, trees, people, etc 9n it. It's a business organization. It's not the same as the state known as Tennessee. Also, why would anyone care what "SCOTUS"rules on? As an American, the only "supreme court" that matters are a jury of your peers, drawn from your community. However, I'm going to assume you claim to be a U.S. citizen and/or a citizen of the United States, yes? If so, then yeah you should probably listen to what your owners tell you to do.
@@chadkerwin4719 Your word salad means absolutely nothing beyond the reality you have created for yourself in your own mind.
What’s next? Dogs and cats spying ?
FedEx is spying for cops .😢
We all have neighbors, who knows what they are uploading about our lives 😮
CIA used a cat with embedded microphones on Hitler
@@craigrobbins3540 Close - during the cold war in the 1960s they did outfit a cat with a mic and transmitter and planned on releasing it into a public area to eavesdrop. The only thing they head was the sound of a car horn, the minute they let the kitty out, he got hit by a taxi. $22 million down the crapper. Ref: Operation Acoustic Kitty. Also Hitler was not alive when the CIA existed - during his time they were called the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) National Security Act of 1947 turned them into the CIA, though there was a 2 year period between the disbanding of the OSS and the formation of the CIA.
@@craigrobbins3540 😂😅
I'm pretty sure FedEx and UPS already are equipped with cameras that snatched license plate numbers.
@@craigrobbins3540 Interesting. Espcially since the CIA didn't even exist until Hitler had been dead for nearly two years.
Hmmm ... a VPN and a search on how to build an EMP gun seems to be in order. 🤣
Yup
Has to stay within certain power limits, and yes that's legal.. but how you do it isn't that... It's to deauthentication of the Wi-Fi packets being used..
If they're using a cell signal for operation, they're violating multiple laws... Depending on the factors at play
Need a ark and an antenna, maybe a shield to focus the beam . Could also be done with parts from a microwave , could be dangerous tho would not attempt if understanding of the subject it limited . Wifi 2.4 and 5.8ghz jammers are available online. And old satellite dish would be a good reflector to direct a signal in a small beam.
I personally believe they should not be allowed to do so without a warrant!
Well the supreme Court needs to catch up
The current Supreme Court would probably agree with drone surveillance.
Don't count on it.
@@Frank71Agreed! These "Men" in long Black Robes actually work against We The People most of the time.....
Is there money in it for them?
🤣🤣
"1400 agencies using drones.." Except the Secret Service.
bingo
bingo
😂@@apacheturtleisland9462
😂 yeah make it make sense .
Don't take Mt word for it. But lookup Fed-Ex spying for the government I believe it like 40,000 of their delivery trucks already have them in their trucks..a bunch of BS so much for living in a free country!!!
This is a gross violation of our rights to privacy
So to fly drones on a private property for surveillance is legal, however they are building drones which look like birds...😂
Hey, I was just bird hunting. How could I have known that bird was a drone?
If you shot down a drone that looked like an eagle, would you be arrested for shooting down a drone or shooting down an eagle which is also illegal (and a felony too I think)?
@@josefmazzeo6628No because a drone is a drone and not an eagle and I could affirm that there is a noticeable difference
@@KennyG944 It was a little tough, maybe I cooked it to long.
@@superuser8636 Then explain the guys rotting in jail for selling the cops baby powder.
Apparently Donald Trump security team had no access this technology
Christopher Thomas 6336; That would've shown too many facts
I don't know how the security people missed that guy but it would have been impossible to keep himself obscured from a drone.
That was not the Donald Trump security team. That was the Biden/Cheatle Secret Service that failed.
@user-nd8cs3qx1v what is Christopher Thomas 6336?
Their drone request was denied.
"...and other bad actors (inserts Steven Seagal photo)...😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I caught that also😂
Came to comments to see if anyone else caught that😂😅
@@klwthe3rd every time he breathes.
@@klwthe3rd After about 250 donuts.
That was too funny !
Are if they take the drums and fly up close to your bedroom window and see you when you are changing your clothes I know there is a lot of good cops but there is a lot of weird police officers 😔💔
Sounds more like a peeping Tom!
good cops? where
Now someone needs to make a directional jamming device😂😂. If a drone falls on your property, do you have to return it?
Helicopters are NOT fixed-wing aircraft.
Nor are drones (of the quad-copter type).
But they are fixed fin aircraft 🐟 🚁 ❓ 😅
The cyborg dragonfly just blew my mind. I’m a bit distraught.
You said "fixed wing" and showed heliocopters. Fixed wing means not a rotating wing.
Drones are not fixed wing either.
@@StephanieSoressifixed wing drones are a thing.
They can look through the side of your house and get a face recognition of who's in the house and where they are what are you showing us so far is nothing new they've had it out for 35 years
Hello drone!
Meet my friend, Mr. Shotgun.
Followed by a free government paid stay at the Hotel Graybar.
@@josefmazzeo6628it just crashed into my pond. No you cannot come on my property to retrieve it. Good luck with the gators if you try.
@@brianhillis3701 "Sir looks like your exotic animal licence has just expired"
I actually build these little things. It's pretty weird how the rules are currently laid out, and often times quite stupid. The latest lawmaking that they're trying to push is known as Remote ID, which they expect anything weighing over 250 grams to have a GPS lock and emit a registered serial number, location, and pilot location. Of course, this rule has a huge number of holes in it, and the hardware is stupidly expensive compared to everything else on the machine. To date, I think I've found one person who plans to comply. This is out of hundreds. We feel like we're getting screwed for something that helps nobody, and hurts us.
Interesting !
Crazy how our taxes fund our own subjugation.
@@SushiArmageddon ain’t that the truth!
They are not trying to push remote ID. It passed over a year ago and went into effect earlier this year.
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 I say that they're still pushing for it because basically nobody has actually bothered with it yet. There has been such low interest in compliance that there wasn't even enough stock in place on their first try. That's why they had to delay it for six months.
I believe the FAA laws regarding drones limit the altitude above 400 ft. when going over private residences, anything below 400 ft. is a violation of privacy.
🤣🤣
That's for private citizens, not Government drones.
That is correct and it's an illegal trespass. This TH-cam lawyer has no idea what he's talking about on this subject matter.
That is not correct.
In most circumstances the FAA altitude limit is 400 feet maximum. Drones (the small ones that we're thinking of in relation to this video) can only fly above 400' if they are within 400 feet of a structure and not in controlled airspace.
@@windrider65
While I wouldn't expect the FAA to prosecute a remote pilot who was working for the government they are regulated under the same law. 14 CFR part 107
If a hawk takes down a drone, can the cops do anything about it? Asking for a friend…
Jezus christ, wasn't there a Black Mirror episode about this kind of stuff? Yet another case of government taking cues from Hollywood.
There is no separation between government and Hollywood. That’s why epsteins client list still runs the show.
South Park had the best drone episode.
I bet both get their “ideas” from the same source… DARPA
FAA rules on drones say 400 ft is highest you can fly. Most drone operators will not fly low about a house as they understand privacy concerns and don't want trouble. I had a neighbor ask if I was flying one low over his house. I told him I wouldn't do that but it wasn't me. I suspect it was the power company. He talked about shooting it down and I told him it's a federal crime.
Theu used to go higher back when they first started this why I got ridded of my drones because of the Nazis laws.Its not fun anymore it sucks its a money scam since drones price ate higher than they worth.Its sad.Who wants low 400 feet if they can go higher. I understand because its a safty thing for airline so on but it sucks freedom is gone when it first started. This why I quite gaming befor the scam s started they went most digital scamy downloads.Now its scalping money time.😅
Air rights typically extend 1000 feet above a property before the FAA gets a default easement for aircraft. Small drones are banned from going above 400ft. So, by default a drone would be encroaching or trespassing if it flew over private property. It seems like the law is pretty clear cut, it's just that a court opinion hasn't explicitly reinforced the law yet.
Tmk it's at least 365 feet according to 70 yo jurisprudence.
Between the crows, vultures, hawks, that hang around my house I may not have to worry about drones, that and all the trees.
VPNs don't make your internet data private or safe. The government can still see your data.
Yes but it takes time and resources for them to keep dive and backtrace your worldwide web travels.
@@lanceburke6236 If your VPN server is in the USA, they just monitor the internet traffic coming out of the server which is unencrypted.
F there drones
their*
"there"?? FFS!
couple years ago my oldest daughter notice there were drone flying over head of her home, cousin and aunt's home. one was even close to her aunt's home. they had like blue and/or red flashing lights. this went on every night and not sure even to this day why they were over their places
My drone has red and green lights on it like an airplane.
@@windrider65 interesting well this was in the night and there were several so the only thing they can think of was law enforcement spying on them...
Just think that now drones have high energy beam weapons on them. Sound familiar? Like the sentinels from Halos guilty spark mission. What if Halo was the future of our reality, and we are actually the Forerunners who created all the high tech.
@@-._--_.- well ukraine is using the US money that was "given to them" and making AI assault drones that kills so yeah doesn't surprise me any
I'm in aviation and FAA laws say no flying below 500 AGL (Above Ground Level)
Well, if you're in aviation, you'd better study up and learn what the FAA actually says, because even for an airplane or helicopter, it's a lot more complicated than that. And for drones, they are allowed in the opposite of the places airplanes are allowed, so that they don't hit airplanes.
The first question is how do you know who owns the drone? Didn't the supreme court ruled you own the air space above your property and can shoot down drones that enter your space?
No the Supreme Court did not rule that you can shoot at drones, or any other aircraft.
Weather people technically own the airspace or not is irrelevant. It was decided a long time ago that the airspace is a public domain that anybody can use according to FAA regulations. Even if you own that airspace, you cannot regulate it.
FTP!
File Transfer Protocol?
What are you talking about?
@@puckg2454 I would guess he means F*** the police.
@@GregZimdahlno, he's for the people
Learn from the Russians, electronic jamming.
FCC violation.
The FAA isn't happy until you're not happy.
The FCC isn't happy until you're in jail.
LOL, that's not working out so well.
The Gov owns the air! Thats why you get a fed tax on your cell phone bills to use it lol
I own my "Air rights" as well as "mineral rights!" IT has been proven in FEDERAL COURT!
You have the "air rights" to build things there. You have no rights to stop aircraft from flying there.
Since drones are legally considered to be aircraft, and therefore have certain flyover rights afforded to aircraft, I would like to see the courts also clarify that they must conform to FAA-enforced minimum altitude regulations, as follows:
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Hmmm - seems to be a conflict here. Can't fly above 400 feet, but can't fly below 1000 feet (of the highest point) in congested areas....seems like a loophole for city dwellers.
So called drones AREN'T AIRCRAFT. That's the issue everyone is having. The FAA can't just claim they are aircraft by redefined in the definition... This was just taken up with the supreme Court..
I've posted this countless times on this thread that this so called lawyer has no idea what he's talking about on this subject matter.
He's making a TH-cam video for clicks... Stating caselaw of cases that had bad lawyers. Then not telling you the full details of the real case
If you're familiar with part 91 regulations you should also be familiar with part 107.
@@josefmazzeo6628
400'? Where do you see that in 91.119
I don't understand what you're talking about
91 regulates manned aircraft and part 107 regulates unmanned aircraft. You're reading the wrong set of rules. Also most localities have voyeurism laws that protect you from "peeping Tom's" which would apply when non-police drones are being invasive to your sense of privacy. Under part 107 a drone is still considered an aircraft and you cannot interfere with its flight without facing legal consequences.
So what you're saying is its illegal for the police to shoot down my drone too?
Absolutely correct. Nobody can shoot a drone down, who isn't allowed to shoot a manned airplane down.
The Birds Aren't Real movement was actually a joke made up by the creator, they don't really believe that...
The "movement" is commentary on how little evidence and critical thinking we will do for a "loudly proclaimed truth" that is factually incorrect.
with the ring cameras the police have access to them should be illegal. so insurance company's are using these drones without your permission. By the way, they have the tech to see through your walls now, so what is to stop them from using them?
If you live in one of the States needing a warrant, does the state then need to provide land owner with a copy of warrant Before execution of warrant??
Knock knock. Who's there? Mr. Drone, with a warrant.
don't forget the remote ID broadcasting
More than a miles above your home it is not.
There is no distance that restricts drones. You do not own the airspace above your home. Not even one inch. Period. They can fly over one inch and it's perfectly legal. And if you shoot it down,you are being recorded shooting down a private aircraft. Not smart.
Glad to know this. Founders? What would they say? Seriously! Full Confession: I was on back porch. Swatted at a large fly that landed on picnic table. Flushed it. Turns out it was a warrantless drone. I’m now on a list. Have hired an attorney. Told to remain silent if asked by police if I have ever stated “I wouldn’t hurt a fly”
All hail the Gigashadow......
BIRDS ARENT REAL!!!
I understand now, LOL.
Question how would anyone know is was a police drone? Does it wear a badge?
It will ask you to ID yourself.
They use eco location too in my area
trees help hide my yard. l have checked it out from satallite
That’s a little government over however if it’s being used in the right way it might be OK but if they are within a mile of your home above it within that mile it is against the law your tress passing that’s real estate law base