Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

legality of shooting a drone out of the sky

2»

Comments

  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators Posts: 81,234 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭ 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,899 ✭✭✭✭ cnocbui


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭ 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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,424 ✭✭✭✭ 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

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,424 ✭✭✭✭ 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???

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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...


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,899 ✭✭✭✭ 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,424 ✭✭✭✭ 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.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭ 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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    The Germans take data protection extremely seriously.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭ meathstevie


    Sparks wrote: »
    The Germans take data protection extremely seriously.

    You’d wonder why...


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,055 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,424 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


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

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 286 ✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 991 ✭✭✭ 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,485 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,625 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    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.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,485 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,220 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    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

    I thought one owned the sky above and the ground below. There are limits i.e. an aircraft is allowed.

    Actually see below it's a bit of a grey area:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/who-owns-the-sky-property-owners-or-drone-users-1.2425692

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,485 ✭✭✭ runawaybishop


    Feisar wrote: »
    I thought one owned the sky above and the ground below. There are limits i.e. an aircraft is allowed.

    Actually see below it's a bit of a grey area:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/who-owns-the-sky-property-owners-or-drone-users-1.2425692

    Whether drones are allowed as long as over x feet high or not you still can't shoot them down with impunity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,220 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    Whether drones are allowed as long as over x feet high or not you still can't shoot them down with impunity.

    I haven't chimed in regards the shooting of drones, it was more the point of law that piqued my interest regarding the extent of land ownership.

    I operate a leave no trace policy when it comes to shooting. I don't advertise it and I certainly don't want any interactions with johnny public.

    First they came for the socialists...



Advertisement