|
The 500ft View
With yet another drone down after a neighbor’s shotgun blast, this time in Kentucky, it may be time for consumer drone companies to add firearms to their list of things to sense-and-avoid. What makes this event noteworthy is not only its similarity to an incident in California just over a month ago, but the public dialog between the two men, mediated through local media outlets.
Reading the back and forth, there’s a clear “there I was, minding my own private business” feel to both sides of the story, and through their discourse it’s easy to empathize with both sides (never mind the chosen method of defense, which just as easily could have been a slingshot).
From the shotgun wielder, William Merideth:
"[My girls] were out on the back deck, and the neighbors were out in their yard. And they come in and said, ‘Dad, there’s a drone out here, flying over everybody’s yard.’"
And the pilot, David Boggs:
Boggs [said] this was the maiden voyage of his DJI Phantom 3, and… his aim was simply to fly over a vacationing friend’s property, a few doors away from Merideth’s property
Merideth:
“I would just like [him] to get some education on his toy and learn to respect the rights of the people. It's fine and dandy, and I think it's cool there's a camera on it, but just take it to a park or something—he's not a responsible drone owner.”
Boggs:
“Now the drone’s getting a bad name because the drone slayer made a bad decision when he went skeet shooting in the middle of a neighborhood.”
If these two men represent reasonable concerns at the intersection of drones and privacy, we’re left with a myriad of questions. What is a reasonable, legal response for someone who believes their privacy is being violated by a drone? Where can a drone be safely operated without infringing on others’ real (or even perceived) rights? And with the DHS telling people that consumer drones are the new terror threat, can we blame the general public for their concerns?
|
