legality of shooting a drone out of the sky

reniwren

Hi all,

So the other day my father told me a van parked in a field across the road, and launched a drone, which proceeded to travel across my uncle's property, my father's and then my sister's property before returning to the field, then the van drive up to the farmers house,

The farmer has a field to the side of these houses but my uncle owns the land behind the houses.

I asked him why didn't he shoot it, and he said he didn't want to get in trouble,

What are the consequences if any? Or does anybody know, As I don't think there would be any.

Kepler 186f

IMO while your father owns the land, not the sky above it, had he shot it down and there was proof he had, he could face a charge of criminal damage

Sparks

1. You'll miss. Drones are small, moving targets.
2. The round will keep going after you miss if it's a rifle.
3. What goes up will come down.
4. Bullets are still lethal when they come down several miles away.
5. Ireland has approximately seventy people per square kilometer (obviously that varies with location but houses cluster normally so it'll be higher within a few miles of your house).

Reckless discharge of a firearm would be the charge if you didn't hit someone and got reported; it would be that plus some more significant charges if you did hit someone.
If you used a shotgun, you'd reduce the risk to other people but not eliminate it so the charge would be the same.

And if by some random stroke of luck you *did* hit it, the charge would be reckless discharge of a firearm *and* destruction of someone else's property.

Also, this is not the first time it's come up and the Gardai have already stated they consider it illegal to shoot at drones.

Bad idea from a safety standpoint and from a legal one.

On the other hand, it's also illegal to overfly someone's land with a drone; you can at least lodge formal written complaints (I know, I know, it won't be as immediately satisfying as shooting at it, but videoing someone doing it and being sure to note licence plate numbers and getting faces on the video is a better idea overall).

Kepler 186f

Very informative post Sparks, however I don’t agree that it’s illegal to fly over someone’s land, well as far as the Irish Aviation Authorities guidelines/ regulations are concerned. It might be a data protection issue but not illegal IMO

Fian

2.—(1) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

(a) intending to damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be damaged, and

(b) intending by the damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person who damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another, with intent to defraud shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) An offence committed under this section by damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, and

(b) on conviction on indictment—

(i) in case the person is guilty of arson under subsection (1) or (3) or of an offence under subsection (2) (whether arson or not), to a fine or imprisonment for life or both, and

(ii) in case the person is guilty of any other offence under this section, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

(6) For the purposes of this section a person is reckless if he has foreseen that the particular kind of damage that in fact was done might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it.

guyfo

Sparks wrote: »

1. You'll miss. Drones are small, moving targets.
2. The round will keep going after you miss if it's a rifle.
3. What goes up will come down.
4. Bullets are still lethal when they come down several miles away.
5. Ireland has approximately seventy people per square kilometer

A fair few flaws in that logic, very odd comments for a mod of a shooting forum...

1: a bird or rabbit or clay is also a small moving target
2: why would you use a rifle FFS
3: yes that is physics, what is your point?
4: if that is really your point then all forms of shooting should be banned and if using the right type of gun for the job there is no issue, buckshot doesn't travel that far....
5: again, shooting a phesant would result in exactly the same scenario when shooting up into the air

In short, what you are saying is guns are dangerous, and should only be used pointing at the ground..... What a load of BS.

biko

Probably easier and better to challenge and video the van people.

weldoninhio

There are a number of limitations for the operation of drones under the 2015 Order which include never operating a drone under the following circumstances:

If it will be a hazard to another aircraft in flight.
Over an assembly of people (12 persons or more).
Farther than 300m from the person operating the drone.
Within 30m of any person, vessel or structure not under the control of the person operating the drone.
Closer than 5km from an aerodrome.
In a negligent or reckless manner so as to endanger life or property of others.
Over 400ft (120m) above ground level.
Over urban areas.
In civil or military controlled airspace.
In restricted areas (for example, military installations, prisons, etc).
Unless the person operating the drone has permission from the landowner for take-off and landing.

Doesn't seem like there is any rule against it.

Sparks

Data protection *is* a legal issue Kepler and it's one that has some significant teeth. If the drone has a camera it's covered by at least two data protection acts in Ireland and you can demand the footage from the operator under the GDPR if you're on it.

Also, the Small Unmanned Aircraft (Drones) and Rockets Order 2015 (https://www.iaa.ie/docs/default-source/publications/legislation/statutory-instruments-(orders)/small-unmanned-aircraft-(drones)-and-rockets-order-s-i-563-of-2015.pdf) says any sub-1kg drone can't go above 15m and can't go more than 300m from the operator (anything over 1kg has to be registered with the IAA and has a lot more rules applied to it).

I'd still video the operator and their licence plate number mind you...

Sparks

guyfo wrote: »

A fair few flaws in that logic, very odd comments for a mod of a shooting forum...
1: a bird or rabbit or clay is also a small moving target

/sigh
Yes. And we miss those all the time. People miss clays in the Olympic Games after decades of training.

2: why would you use a rifle FFS

People have. Hence the mention. See also the note on shotguns later on.

3: yes that is physics, what is your point?

That people seem to forget that at the worst possible moment and continually omit it from this specific subject. See all the comments by the public at the time of the drones disrupting Gatwick airport for example.

4: if that is really your point then all forms of shooting should be banned and if using the right type of gun for the job there is no issue, buckshot doesn't travel that far....

You haven't read the regulations governing the building of target shooting ranges, have you?

5: again, shooting a phesant would result in exactly the same scenario when shooting up into the air

And has.

In short, what you are saying is guns are dangerous, and should only be used pointing at the ground..... What a load of BS.

First of all, please ask every poster on this forum if they think guns are not dangerous. I'll wait. I'll have to, you won't find any who don't think guns are potentially dangerous because that's the first lesson you're taught when you get taught how to shoot.

Secondly, we all spend a lot of time and effort to not fire rifles into the air willy-nilly ever, and the kind of shot you fire from shotguns like that is designed to not go far and even then you're responsible for your background with every shot.

Sparks

weldoninhio wrote: »

There are a number of limitations for the operation of drones under the 2015 Order which include never operating a drone under the following circumstances:

If it will be a hazard to another aircraft in flight.
Over an assembly of people (12 persons or more).
Farther than 300m from the person operating the drone.
Within 30m of any person, vessel or structure not under the control of the person operating the drone.
Closer than 5km from an aerodrome.
In a negligent or reckless manner so as to endanger life or property of others.
Over 400ft (120m) above ground level.
Over urban areas.
In civil or military controlled airspace.
In restricted areas (for example, military installations, prisons, etc).
Unless the person operating the drone has permission from the landowner for take-off and landing.

Doesn't seem like there is any rule against it.

Those are for drones over 1 kg in weight which also have to be registered with the IAA.

Drones under 1kg have more general rules - never over 15m in altitude, never in a manner that presents a hazard. The nature of "hazard" is left vague by the Order (a phrase which basically means "you're going to court").

Kepler 186f

Yes Sparks like I said there are probably data protection issues, but it’s not illegal. Making a formal complaint to who exactly?
And the IAA regulations actually state not to fly above 400ft or 120m, not sure where you got 15m from?

Sparks

For GDPR complaints you go to the DPC; for others you'd sue directly as it's civil rather than criminal, at least as I understand it.

Also, that infographic is for drones that weigh more than 1kg (see the PDF of the 2015 Order above, the section that applies to drones under 1kg is 6(2)(c) - if you go outside of those conditions you have to have registered with the IAA and have complied with all of the other restrictions which are the ones in that infographic).

Kepler 186f

That makes sense, it seemed like you were implying the person should make a formal complaint to the Gardaí who don’t enforce GDPR issues.

I am not trying to argue so maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree, as I believe that infographic is for drones up to and over 1kg, with the only mention of 1kg reminding the user it has to be registered with the IAA. Of course I might be wrong but that’s my understanding of it

juice1304

Surely its only a data protection issue if he actually records the footage and not just simply streaming information. I also dont see how google earth would be legal if looking at other people's property from the air was a problem.
You can take off in a helicopter from your back garden if you wanted to, perfectly legal to do so. So why would a drone be any different?
I also dont see why shooting a drone would be difficult? Anyone who can hit a clay or running boar target etc or a moving animal is going to be able to shoot a drone.
here is an example from ireland and the owner intends on sueing the farmer
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/a88iv7/suing_farmer_that_shot_and_damaged_my_drone/
If someone shot a drone i owned i would certainly have them done for criminal damage.

reniwren

Hi all, just to clarify

1. You'll miss. Drones are small, moving targets.
Drone was moving slowly and hovered over the gardens, no houses behind for about 10-15 miles or so

2. The round will keep going after you miss if it's a rifle.
Shotgun, rifle would be madness

3. What goes up will come down.
Large gardens lots of space

4. Bullets are still lethal when they come down several miles away.
Drone was only 25-30ft high/away or so

5. Ireland has approximately seventy people per square kilometer (obviously that varies with location but houses cluster normally so it'll be higher within a few miles of your house).

Don't really understand what this has got to do with it, I only asked in terms of shooting in a safe direction with the appropriate firearm and it seemed it was scoping out the place to rob would you get rid of it.

solarwinds

juice1304 wrote: »

Surely its only a data protection issue if he actually records the footage and not just simply streaming information. I also dont see how google earth would be legal if looking at other people's property from the air was a problem.
You can take off in a helicopter from your back garden if you wanted to, perfectly legal to do so. So why would a drone be any different?
I also dont see why shooting a drone would be difficult? Anyone who can hit a clay or running boar target etc or a moving animal is going to be able to shoot a drone.
here is an example from ireland and the owner intends on sueing the farmer
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/a88iv7/suing_farmer_that_shot_and_damaged_my_drone/
If someone shot a drone i owned i would certainly have them done for criminal damage.

Yep that is a fair point and you would be right to seek compensation, but I would imagine you were not flying it for the purposes of possibly committing a future criminal act.

reniwren

"Probably easier and better to challenge and video the van people."

Last year someone was trying to rob my sister's house and I just happened by and I got hit by their van for my trouble, not always easier.

greasepalm

I bite back

gavindublin

Currently a drone is legally classed asn unmanned aircraft. No differential between that and an Airbus.
So the only people who can take the shot are the army.

Hence why we are so vulnerable to drone attacks

gctest50

The law needs to be updated then

Grizzly 45

About the same as shooting at any other aircraft under the legislation of the IAA or Firearms act.They are classified as "aircraft" under the law.
That said you do have a right to privacy and the DPA does also rightly apply too,and as this is a new phenemonen in law it is quite open to interpretation on both cases.
To go by the OP post this drone "flew" across his collective famlies property ?Did it stop ,hover, do anything that looked like it was filming their property?Or was it just passing thru to do whatever in their neighbours fields?
If that was the case then it wasn't intruding per se,just as much as an aircraft flying over isnt.

Now ,if it was lurking over the property,hovering over buildings,or attempting to look in windows or whatever,then it could be classified as a invasion of privacy, and a nusiance,just as much if it was filming your teenage daughter sunbathing,or whatever.You THEN might be justified in acting like a FLAK battery.
However ,this is a new phenomen for law as said.Your privacyVS personal airspace VS the right of aircraft to traverse it safely.So be careful out there and dont become a test case.

Nekarsulm

juice1304 wrote: »

You can take off in a helicopter from your back garden if you wanted to, perfectly legal to do so. So why would a drone be any different?

Quite.
But you own your back garden.
Taking off and landing from someone else's private property is a different matter. ( In my mind anyway).
Its situations like this that the lack of the offence of trespass leaves the property owner rather helpless.

SmartinMartin

Shoot the van.

Stormington

Drone was only 25-30ft high/away or so

From the person, property or van?

Kepler 186f wrote: »

Yes Sparks like I said there are probably data protection issues, but it’s not illegal. Making a formal complaint to who exactly?
And the IAA regulations actually state not to fly above 400ft or 120m, not sure where you got 15m from?

Flying a drone across a property at low altitude is trespass.

While the extent of airspace superadjacent a property has not been defined (ad coelum doctrine no longer exists) the occupier controls as much as needed for use and enjoyment of the land (Bernstein). If you fly a drone such that you are interfering with this you leave yourself open to an action. This extent will depend upon the facts of the case (the US is hearing cases arguing tree-top/120 feet zones) or if the fly through was of a transient nature.

Filming someone in a public place, even their back garden (Victoria Racing), is not an issue under common law. It is more problematic under GDPR.

Fwiw the IAA cannot take any charges against you - the regulations are toothless. Following the regulations will look good in court if it gets that far.

aking off and landing from someone else's private property is a different matter

Correct.

There is a zone of tolerance allowing a flight path to ascend and descend. If this is on your property you are golden (mostly). It may be permitted to pass through another property's airspace if that is a safer route and causes minimal interference with other's property rights.

Nekarsulm

No such thing as Trespass on farmland in Ireland.
Any bunch of scobies can descend on your field and the law can't do a thing about it, unless (a) you can prove they are about to commit a crime, or (b) they enter the curtilage of the farmyard.

reniwren

bit more context,

Closest he would have been when over the first house would be 100 yards, furthest being 150 yards from the van.

reniwren

Stormington wrote: »

From the person, property or van?

Off the ground at the back of the houses

Still waters

Is this a new way of lads using drones to see if theres anything worth going in for in someone's yard, using a drone with video capabilities ?

dubbrin

We live 550m down an un-tarmaced lane off of a local (L) road. 4 houses in a cluster, not side by side. One evening I'm in the garden and there's a sizable drone up and down, across over the whole lot, stopping, then off again then back again. I say sizable, but that's just my opinion. I'd say more the kind a pro photographer would have as opposed to something I'd buy in argos. I made my way out onto the lane and up towards the road where there were a trio of people who looked like they were operating it on a property up at the L road. I got close enough to make it obvious that I was watching and was looking for the operator. Once it was coming from a neighbor's property I wasn't as anxious. Turns out they were selling up and the agent was taking aerials. None of mine or the close neighbours houses were featured, he/she was probably looking for a good angle and it makes sense now. This may be the case for the OP however the van sounds suss, but then again it driving to the farmers house might offer explanation.

All in all, scrotes are using technology and I don't want any drones flying over my house or garage. They can unlock a new BMW with a key emulator, they can scam you at the door, in a car park. A €500 drone is no bother to some to be able to case properties.

If it's not legit then it's intimidation and unnecessary. I'd be reaching into the hot press for Barry Beretta next time

Bogwoppit

A good few years ago I was working on a shoot and someone was flying an rc plane over a pen of young pheasants causing them to spook which resulted in a good few dead.
Plane was duly despatched when the owner refused to move elsewhere.

biko

reniwren wrote: »

Last year someone was trying to rob my sister's house and I just happened by and I got hit by their van for my trouble, not always easier.

To do nothing and let the bad guys win is not an option.

Brontosaurus

Well you are allowed to shoot clays on your property, yes? Safety wise shooting a drone, taking directing into account, isn't more dangerous than shooting clays, that's a bizarre argument for anyone to make.

So what if you just happened to be shooting clays the same time this drone flew in front of one?

cnocbui

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Well you are allowed to shoot clays on your property, yes? Safety wise shooting a drone, taking directing into account, isn't more dangerous than shooting clays, that's a bizarre argument for anyone to make.

So what if you just happened to be shooting clays the same time this drone flew in front of one?

As above - you shoot the drone and then find out it was owned and operated by someone legitimately using it to take aerial footage for an auctioneer.

The owner operator would legitimately be angered and you would likely end up being known to the Guards, other than just socially.

I don't understand how there can be a GDPR issue. Commercial passenger planes often have an external belly cam that shows the ground below to passengers. I don't think any farmers or houses under airport approach paths are going to get anywhere with GDPR complaints. Private helicopters often land and take off in my local village. Not possible without flying low over some properties. Any passenger could be filming. Take a look at the resolution of satellite imagery on Bing maps. I am fairly sure much higher resolution images are available commercially. During the cold war it was widely reported spy satellites could read the headline of a newspaper.

You do not have privacy from above unless there is cloud cover, and that has been the case for the past 40 years. Of course you aren't annoyed about that because you can't see the satellites, getting annoyed about a drone is then logically down to being annoyed about seeing it rather than it seeing you.

meathstevie

Nekarsulm wrote: »

No such thing as Trespass on farmland in Ireland.
Any bunch of scobies can descend on your field and the law can't do a thing about it, unless (a) you can prove they are about to commit a crime, or (b) they enter the curtilage of the farmyard.

That’s easily dealt with if there’s a crop in that field being damaged, for example trampling grass destined for sileage or grazing, or livestock being worried. Those are both offences which makes that you can put a stop to that activity immediately, forcibly if needed, as long as you act in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

J.R.

Can I shoot down a drone?

Under the joint policing committee it is illegal to shoot down a drone even if it is on your lands without your permission. Farmers must contact their local Gardaí and inform them of the intrusion of the drone.

https://www.thatsfarming.com/news/drone-can-i-shoot-oen-down

Grizzly 45

cnocbui wrote: »

I don't understand how there can be a GDPR issue. Commercial passenger planes often have an external belly cam that shows the ground below to passengers. I don't think any farmers or houses under airport approach paths are going to get anywhere with GDPR complaints.

Simply because they are flying over property and passing in regulated and controlled airspace.They arent hovering over the property and invading somones privacy.

Private helicopters often land and take off in my local village. Not possible without flying low over some properties. Any passenger could be filming

.

If they are filming ,thats a violation of the pilots liscense also if they are not on a commercial pilots rating.As a private pilots liscense is a sport liscense and is prohibited from doing any flights for reward.Sure,it might happen that someone is filming for their personal usage.But the moment it becomes public,is displayed in a public mannrer or used for reward.It's open to a DPA and privacy challenge.

Take a look at the resolution of satellite imagery on Bing maps. I am fairly sure much higher resolution images are available commercially. During the cold war it was widely reported spy satellites could read the headline of a newspaper.

They could and can do so today.IF they happen to be directly overhead.However there is a difference between wanting to read the difference between the Taliban secret plans,that they are for some reason discussing outside their cave in Afghanistan,and cecking out your missus sunbathing in your back garden in Ireland.:p All a question of where you are going to poistion a multi billion dollar spy satellite,with limited fuel supply. And no,commercially available satellite imagery is not good enough to be able to make out people or newspaper writing.At max zero on Google maps its appx 400 meters,plus the images are over 12 months old. IOW you could make out a herd of cows but not which one is lame in the herd.:)

You do not have privacy from above unless there is cloud cover, and that has been the case for the past 40 years. Of course you aren't annoyed about that because you can't see the satellites, getting annoyed about a drone is then logically down to being annoyed about seeing it rather than it seeing you.

If the drone is flying over your property and not stopping,let it go. If it is a liscensed operator doing ligit commercial work,they are obliged to inform the areas residents of the fact .If it is looking in your daughters bedroom window,or filming your property and activity without your permission...Fire at will

Grizzly 45

J.R. wrote: »

Can I shoot down a drone?

Under the joint policing committee it is illegal to shoot down a drone even if it is on your lands without your permission. Farmers must contact their local Gardaí and inform them of the intrusion of the drone.

https://www.thatsfarming.com/news/drone-can-i-shoot-oen-down

The poll on this says 85% would shoot down a drone...So maybe UAV operators should keep that one in mind too???

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And no,commercially available satellite imagery is not good enough to be able to make out people or newspaper writing.At max zero on Google maps its appx 400 meters,plus the images are over 12 months old. IOW you could make out a herd of cows but not which one is lame in the herd.:)

Also, Google maps is processing the image, which is a whole different category than just watching a live feed from a camera. The minute you do anything that gets classified as "processing" - even if it's just saving the video using a name that indicates what's in the video file - you're now governed by the GDPR.

Which is why, if you look at people in google street view, faces are blurred out. As are car licence plate numbers and the like. 'Tis a brave new world...

cnocbui

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Simply because they are flying over property and passing in regulated and controlled airspace.They arent hovering over the property and invading somones privacy.

If they are filming ,thats a violation of the pilots liscense also if they are not on a commercial pilots rating.As a private pilots liscense is a sport liscense and is prohibited from doing any flights for reward.Sure,it might happen that someone is filming for their personal usage.But the moment it becomes public,is displayed in a public mannrer or used for reward.It's open to a DPA and privacy challenge.

They could and can do so today.IF they happen to be directly overhead.However there is a difference between wanting to read the difference between the Taliban secret plans,that they are for some reason discussing outside their cave in Afghanistan,and cecking out your missus sunbathing in your back garden in Ireland.:p All a question of where you are going to poistion a multi billion dollar spy satellite,with limited fuel supply. And no,commercially available satellite imagery is not good enough to be able to make out people or newspaper writing.At max zero on Google maps its appx 400 meters,plus the images are over 12 months old. IOW you could make out a herd of cows but not which one is lame in the herd.:)

If the drone is flying over your property and not stopping,let it go. If it is a liscensed operator doing ligit commercial work,they are obliged to inform the areas residents of the fact .If it is looking in your daughters bedroom window,or filming your property and activity without your permission...Fire at will

Google and Bing satellite imagery is nowhere close to what sort of resolution is available commercially, which is 28cm, not 400m. There is an Australian company called Nearmap. They fly a plane with a specialised high speed, high resolution digital camera and an automated image processing workflow. Their plane can aerial map a major city in one or two flights down to 7cm. They aren't the only company doing stuff like this:

AVAILABLE GIS DATA

Aerial Photography - National Areas 25cm | Urban Areas 12.5cm

Colour Infrared - National Areas 25cm | Urban Areas 12.5cm

Digital Terrain Model - National Areas 2m | Urban Areas 1m

Digital Surface Model - National Areas 1m | Urban Areas 50cm

NDVI (Normalised Differentiated Vegetation Index) - National Areas 25cm

https://www.bluesky-world.ie/

Good luck trying to get your lawyer to stop them overflying your farm and imaging your wife sunbathing in the raw.

The Genie is out of the bottle and no amount of wishing it away or hoping you have legal recourse to make it go away is going to have any effect.

Go ahead, fire at will. A .22 round will travel 2km. No chance you will ever hit someone

A seven-year-old boy has died in hospital the day after being hit by a stray bullet as he walked to a July 4 fireworks display with his father.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356851/Seven-year-old-boy-dies-hit-stray-bullet-fired-air-walked-July-4-fireworks-display.html

Grizzly 45

cnocbui wrote: »

Google and Bing satellite imagery is nowhere close to what sort of resolution is available commercially, which is 28cm, not 400m. There is an Australian company called Nearmap. They fly a plane with a specialised high speed, high resolution digital camera and an automated image processing workflow. Their plane can aerial map a major city in one or two flights down to 7cm. They aren't the only company doing stuff like this:

https://www.bluesky-world.ie/

Good luck trying to get your lawyer to stop them overflying your farm and imaging your wife sunbathing in the raw.

The Genie is out of the bottle and no amount of wishing it away or hoping you have legal recourse to make it go away is going to have any effect.

Go ahead, fire at will. A .22 round will travel 2km. No chance you will ever hit someone

Who said anything about firing a .22 at them??:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Bad ASSumption on your part!

Again,you are talkingTHREE different situations,and as Sparks pointed out in the previous post.LIVE feed VS photo imaging VS invasion of privacy .Hell of a difference.Also, if you do find out that there is footage of a private nature on suchpictures,Those companies are obliged by law to blur it out.Google street view caught numerous couples " in flagrante" over the world ,and has blurred it out.So I could certainly demand such pics be removed from whoever does city mapping.

oldgit1897

I notice on google maps, that the vast majority of German towns and villages are not available on street view. City centres seem to be, but residential areas seem not. Also you can have your house or property blurred out if you choose. I believe its down to a dislike of people nosing.

Sparks

The Germans take data protection extremely seriously.

meathstevie

Sparks wrote: »

The Germans take data protection extremely seriously.

You’d wonder why...

Sparks

In origins it probably has to do with personal experience with living under or adjacent to the Stazi.

More pragmatically these days, it's a big part of commercial competition with the US, who take a comparatively very loose view of data protection. Turns out, strong data protection laws are a competitive advantage in many areas.

Grizzly 45

Fact!Living under two different totalitarian regimes in the last century does kind of focus the mindset.

oldgit1897

Watch the excellent film "The lives of others", one half of the population were spying on the other half. Not a car chase and shoot out sort of flick, but well worth watching.

Gorgeousgeorge

Shooting anything that's not specified on your licence ie game target etc is gonna land ya in bother. On your property / over it, it wont matter we as firearm owners are always on the back foot IMO

runawaybishop

Sparks wrote: »

Also, Google maps is processing the image, which is a whole different category than just watching a live feed from a camera. The minute you do anything that gets classified as "processing" - even if it's just saving the video using a name that indicates what's in the video file - you're now governed by the GDPR.

Which is why, if you look at people in google street view, faces are blurred out. As are car licence plate numbers and the like. 'Tis a brave new world...

Its not that simple. People capturing images etc for personal use are exempt from GDPR as they are not considered data controllers. If there is no record facility GDPR does not even apply.

Google are a commercial entity processing data for commercial and so gdpr applies. Some exemptions apply, such as for law enforcement or the media.

All that said people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so a drone recording someones property can easily get in trouble legally.

Cass

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its not that simple. People capturing images etc for personal use are exempt from GDPR as they are not considered data controllers.

The Data Protection Commission says otherwise.

I've steered clear of this thread because, well, it's not related to shooting sports at all, but on this point there was a debate late last year, and this year about dash cams and the possible GDPR repercussions for those with them.

In an EU court of justice case it was deemed that the "household exemption" only applied to instances where there was no "intrusion" into public areas. As dash cams and apparently drone cams always face public areas they are not considered to be part of the household exemption and therefore those in control of them are data controllers.

Article in the Times and the report from the DPC.

runawaybishop

Cass wrote: »

The Data Protection Commission says otherwise.

I've steered clear of this thread because, well, it's not related to shooting sports at all, but on this point there was a debate late last year, and this year about dash cams and the possible GDPR repercussions for those with them.

In an EU court of justice case it was deemed that the "household exemption" only applied to instances where there was no "intrusion" into public areas. As dash cams and apparently drone cams always face public areas they are not considered to be part of the household exemption and therefore those in control of them are data controllers.

Article in the Times and the report from the DPC.

The rynes case precedes GDPR and is, frankly, nonsense. However its ruling is very very narrow, it concerns data captured from a personal and a household perspective.

Dash cams and drones would fall under the personal exemption, not the household one. The DPC is full of strident nonsense and uses terms such as "may" and "likely" often.