Drone Violates Citizen's Right to Privacy

[Sandra Billups]

A Seattle residence, Linda Pleiss, called police when she noticed a drone with a camera attached to it, hovering outside her 26^th floor window. The drone operator later apologized stating a real estate developer hired him to use the drone to survey property in the area. Linda felt her right to privacy had been violated.

The article raises the question of privacy and what privacies the 1^st Amendment guarantees? In American Democracy, Chapter 4 (pp. 126-130), I learned the right to privacy is a relatively new concept that was not covered explicitly in the Constitution. Rather, it was “implied in all the other liberties as spelled out in the Bill of Rights” (p. 127). Most of the precedence setting cases argued before the Supreme Court seem to clarify the state’s restrictions in invading the privacy of individuals, but few cases can be found clarifying privacy rights that might be violated through channels gained by modern technology.

With all of the technological advances we enjoy today that allow instant sharing of personal and often uncensored information, I am interested to see how our legal system will catch up. I chose the drone article because while I see the benefits of drone technology, I fear its technology, like most, is subject to abuse. I’m excited about the way drones might assist in surveying mines, determining flood zones, fighting fires, and even rescuing people and pets from areas too dangerous for humans to risk. However, I think it would be wise to introduce some controls in order to protect humanity from humanity.

I would address the concerns for privacy raised by Linda Pleiss’ story by presenting laws to restrict the height drones could fly in highly populated residential areas. I would also require surveyors notify persons within the flight path of their drone operations prior to conducting their surveys. In addition to that, I would establish recreational areas for drone hobbyist to operate and identify restricted areas, like beaches and housing areas, which would allow persons to enjoy their privacy without concern for the watchful drones.

Like the Constitution, the Bible says little about the right to privacy. In contrast, Luke 8:17 reminds us, “For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light” (NASB). However, in this case, I believe Jesus set the precedence when He said, “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12, NASB). If I were a drone enthusiast, I would want the opportunity to enjoy the technology, however, as a private individual, I’d appreciate laws restricting the actions of those who might haphazardly invade the sanctity of my home.

[Jonda Lehrmann]

I agree that it was an invasion of Linda Pleiss' privacy.   An individual with a drone should not be permitted to look into others windows without their consent.  It would be similar to someone peeking in your windows like a "peeping tom". 

There are more positive ways to use drones without interfering in citizens lives.  I would require people with certain type of drones to have a license to fly this type of aircraft.  The FAA needs to provide the regulation guidelines so that people can not take advantage by flying them around playgrounds buzzing our children and photographing them as an example.  If they are not using them responsibly and they are breaking the law then their right to fly them in public airspace should be limited or taken away.  1 John 3:11 (NIV) "For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another."  If we truly love one another then we would not feel the need to invade others privacy.  1 Peter 3:8 (NIV) "Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble."  Especially if you have a flying drone with a camera! :-)

[Ronnie Edwards]

I am not trying to be insensitive or disheartening but trying to look at this from a broader perspective and both sides. Please don't think that I am taking any side of the issue just pointing out facts that I observed reading articles and watching news videos and putting my opinion with them.

Facts

• Linda Pliess's apartment is not on the ground floor but very high up.
• Linda Pliess was waking around her apartment indecent, stood in front of a clear glass window.
• Linda Pliess saw a drone or a type of R/C copter with a camera.
• No photos were taken of Linda Pliess, only the building for real estate purposes.
• Company with drone sent the footage to Linda Pliess for verification.

My Questions and Opinions 

• Does the clear glass make what she was doing private? I can't see where this is an invasion of privacy for Linda; after going back and researching the articles I can't make the determination that there should be any restriction put on this technology because of this incident.  I have been in many cities traveling, I have looked out my window and applauded at what I seen in the building adjacent to mine. I can't see where a clear piece of glass separates private from not private.
• Had Linda been committing a crime would this be an invasion of privacy issue or would it be how technology can improve our safety.
• If restrictions were to be put on drones for this incident would that effect police work as well. Could this be imposed on police; if police witness a crime being committed behind a clear a window and this prevents them from entering.

Linda's apartment is very high and a drone with a camera, I can only imagine, is alarming to see out one's window. To look at this another way, if a restriction were to be put on drones from this incident then the things like the Google car, people with cell phone cameras and even the police would have to have the same restrictions.  Say for instance this were to happen at a home in suburbia, a person is walking around their home completely nude with all windows clear of obstructions i.e. blinds, curtains or coverings. If a person takes a picture from the street with a cell phone would that be an invasion of privacy? The paparazzi and some media outlets would argue the opposite and freedom of the press. What if a regular helicopter were taking pictures of the building instead of a drone would the same restrictions be applied to helicopters?

A case came up like this a few years ago when an artist was taking pictures of people living in the building next to his. Pictures were taken of people standing in front of windows, leaving and entering the building, and in common areas all from his apartment across the street. This was actually called art. To me there is no difference in what the artist did and what happened with the drone.

My question is, "Does clear uncovered glass provide privacy to be invaded?"