this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
266 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59428 readers
3118 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wait, isn't this technically "criminal trespassing"?

[–] freewheel@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)

IANALAIANYL. In the days before the internet, I had a family member who worked for an insurance company. Buried deep in the contract was language that allowed agents of said insurance company to come on the property at any time. Her job basically was to go to people's houses and walk around taking photos, usually at policy start or in the case of a claim - before and after. If anybody harassed her, they were at risk of having their home insurance dropped. This was Miami in the 1980s fwiw.

[–] jtk@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 year ago

I've worked for companies that do this my entire professional career. They do work all over the US to this day. It's just standard property insurance practice. It'd be dumb to insure a property, for both damage and liability, sight unseen. They send many notifications via mail, automated phone and the worker directly calls before heading over there, no one wants to get shot. It surprises me a bit people don't know about it but, even though I've done work in the industry for decades, I've never see one of the inspectors at my house. I hadn't heard of anyone using drones yet but they've used bulk flyover images taken from planes with special cameras for at least 15 years.

[–] Derproid@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Sounds like a good way to get shot in some states.

[–] dan1101@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You don't own the airspace over your property. The only way someone might get in trouble for flying a drone over your house is if they were looking in windows or harassing people somehow. Most pics from a drone aren't a lot different from satellite photography.

[–] Bilbo@hobbit.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We actually do own the airspace over our houses. Not as high as planes or space, but a drone probably would from my skimming of this article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/aviation.uslegal.com/ownership-of-airspace-over-property/%3famp

[–] BettyWhiteInHD@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And there are still conditions under which drones can legally fly over your property without it being trespassing, similarly to airplanes:

An entry above the surface of the earth, in the air space in the possession of another, by a person who is traveling in an aircraft, is privileged if the flight is conducted[xi]:

  • for the purpose of travel through the air space or for any other legitimate purpose,
  • in a reasonable manner,
  • at such a height as not to interfere unreasonably with the possessor’s enjoyment of the surface of the earth and the air space above it, and
  • in conformity with such regulations of state and federal aeronautical authorities as are in force in a particular state.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do fly drones for fun and money. I can fly a drone over peoples' property no problem most of the time entirely legally. It's shitty in this particular case and fuck insurance companies but I don't think people claiming criminal trespassing is based in reality. You do not control the airspace above your property. I still hope they consult a lawyer and challenge this particular action against them.

[–] eth0p@iusearchlinux.fyi 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have the full context of the legislation you're quoting, but my interpretation of that paragraph is that it only applies to aircrafts that are carrying passengers.

. . . in the air space in possession of another, by a person who is traveling in an aircraft, is privileged . . .

You're the one who does this for a hobby, though. I'm sure that you know the laws more than I do :)

[–] BettyWhiteInHD@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah maybe and perhaps one day there will be a case and a lawyer who will argue that same point.

Personally, until there are specific laws against flying over private property with specifics regarding altitudes I feel comfortable about flying drones above private property both professionally and recreationally. There have been some attempts by private entities and local governments to restrict public airspace for drones and so far I know really of NYC successfully being able to do so. Public airspace is public airspace and the FAA has been treating drones as aircrafts that need to follow their rules like all the other aircrafts using the airspace.

[–] MrMonkey@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The same reason flying airplanes isn't "criminal trespassing". Satellite and aerial photography happen really high up.

No insurance company used a small toy drone to fly 50' over his property for pictures.

[–] BettyWhiteInHD@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are being downvoted but this is the case in the US. Public airspace is public airspace.

Source: fly drones recreationally and for money.

[–] MrMonkey@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People downvote things they don't want to be true.

It's strange. It doesn't work that way.

[–] Matt_Shatt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not even if we downvote extra hard?