Can I stop drone delivery companies flying over my property?

I would argue it would be worse for the company if the birds died because once that gets all over the Internet I have a feeling that demand for any service that kills birds would drop significantly.

I somehow doubt the crows will cough up the perps name when interrogated....

I need to review those references.

These are the kinds of references I’d love to see more of on HN.

The advantage of the trebuchet or other indirect fires is that the package need not contain and carry a large energy source. For so long as it has enough kinetic energy to maintain maneuverability, soft landing in a yard or porch could be done maybe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Precision_Airdrop_System

Love how that guy even tried googly eyes

Fucking with a Cop's toys is a reliably way to suddenly have a lot of trouble with the cops. It doesn't matter what the law says either, because unless you can find a prior case that specifically covers that law, a cop is not required to respect the law.

Sounds is a funny thing. My physics professor once had us calculate the energy in the sound of an entire stadium and it wasn't enough to heat a cup of coffee. Sound just doesn't have that much energy. For a few hundred watts you can make an entire neighborhood miserable as any car audio enthusiast can demonstrate.

I routinely have Apache helicopters fly over my house and I prefer them to most of the tiny drones. The helicopters typically have lower frequencies and fly way higher. They also don't have that insect flying by your head buzz that makes my ears hurt.

>Not a fan.

Well, they are, technically…

> Not a fan

Are you looking forward to jet-propelled delivery drones?

At what height above your property does that come into effect though? According to US v. Causby the FAA only holds jurisdiction above the "minimum safe altitude". Anything below that is your private property.

Naturally the FAA wouldn't be inclined to advertise such lines of thought.

Yeah, yeah, this is what every single drone hobbyist parrots on about when asked this question. However, when was the last time someone was actually charged and convicted (criminal not civil) for shooting down a drone flying over their property.

Well,not my country, but I think it is quite a silly and too general rule:

What if 10 neighbors collude and start flying drones over my garden and house, only a few meters above ground or my roof, 24/7? What if one of their drones crashes without my doing and hurts _me_? So the actual rules need to be more nuanced than this, to prevent people doing crazy shit with their tech gadgets hurting others. They cannot be given free reign in that matter.

>can occupy parts of national parks and have an armed standoff with federal agents, again with no real consequences.

... until you realize ~ a dozen of the Malheur were informants, and the 'boat ramp' live fire exercises they touted were orchestrated by a self described "psyops" 20 year swiss military veteran (Fabio Minoggio) on the payroll of the FBI who took on a "supervisory" role. Then the FBI refused to identify the informants during trial, so we don't even know which of the 'armed standoff' members were actual just the government fighting themselves and instigating others along with it.

The more you look into the case the more you find out why the jury acquitted ammon. It looks as if the jury decided the government had a standoff with itself.

> In yet others, they can occupy parts of national parks and have an armed standoff with federal agents, again with no real consequences.

What situation are you referencing here? First one that comes to mind is Malheur but one of them was killed and 7 went to prison.

go to any large metro with large poor districts in the USA on New Year's Eve.. also 4th of July.. try and count the firearms.. People have figured out very well how to hide in a crowd. Some of the other circumstances mentioned sound ill-informed TBH

Most localities have laws against invading someone’s privacy. There don’t need to be special laws for every specific type of surveillance.

It generally is. How else do you think Google gets all those satellite pictures for maps?

How about microwaves? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6XdcWToy2c

Fireworks seem like a reasonable compromise.

if a drone is close enough to be hit with a rock, its operating ilegally.

A net launcher wouldn't be considered a firearm under Canadian law, so it wouldn't be illegal under firearms rules.

Most people seriously looking to shoot down a drone would be using a shotgun and bird shot, so that's essentially a non-issue.

People shoot at cars (road rage) which is way worse. I don't think such people have self-preservation instincts, or at least they aren't developed against threats such as "this might lead to an investigation and possible criminal charges some time in the future"

You know what they say about assuming...

You would be incorrect. It happens frequently and gets prosecuted.

It is illegal in Texas to capture, posses, display, or use images or video from drones taken of private property or people on private property without permission or other limited authorizations (active pursuit of a suspect, investigating crime scene, search warrant, some licensed real estate activity, etc)

I don't know what laws in other states/countries are, but I would guess many have something similar that would prevent that.

My municipality (US) does this for property tax purposes already, using commercial datasets. Stands to reason that this is next.

I’d be interested to see how that changes if you launch a net

Again, it is an aircraft. Ask yourself that same question, only substitute “Cessna” for “drone”.

Nothing changes.

It's a felony to attempt to damage, destroy, disable or wreck any aircraft. How you do it doesn't matter.

> shouldnt be here

You'll want to examine this a bit more closely: is the aircraft in a location it should not be? Above your house is likely to be a valid place for a drone, whether you like it or not. Exceptions are for things like airports (other air traffic) and sporting events (large crowds).

So when you use a net to capture the drone out of the sky, you are not collecting it from its location of abandonment on your property, you are stealing it. (That's assuming more lax rules on disabling drones vs. other aircraft, per the sibling comment.)

If I knew I had a yahoo neighbor blasting away with their guns, with my children playing in the backyard next door to them, I'd volunteer for that jury, just to have a chance to convict the guy. This is not how civilized people behave.

Drones should have a "piñata radius" so if you're flying it close enough where I can hit it with a bat I should be able to. Like when I was at a skatepark and this drone nerd was pissing everyone off. The drone ended up in the lake pretty quickly.

Capitalism doesn't remain OK just because you've only added drones.

that's a good fantasy. but here's how I think it would play-out in reality:

* your new window was $1800, so even with treble damages, it's still under $10k, which means it is a small claims issue.

* sue AMZN (or some subcontractor/"third party") in small claims, they don't show up. you get a default judgement

* good luck collecting. the moment you do, they start denying it on technical grounds. Oh you were a prime member in 2018, remember when you agreed to settle all disputes in mediation? well, we remember.

* Go to mediation, they find that your neighbor is culpable for the accident, rules 100% against you. Or better yet, they refuse to engage with you because your neighbor won't agree to be bound by the arbitration.

The FAA has "field preemption" from Congress. Meaning any state or local law that conflicts with the FAA's stated purpose is automatically rendered moot and unenforceable. The FAAs mandate is the efficient operation of aircraft within the airspace.

So a law that bans a drone from using a massive speaker to violate a noise ordnance could be enforced, but a law against the operational noise of an aircraft could not. A city could ban a drone operator from flying over a crime scene low enough to disturb evidence, but could not ban a drone from passing over a crime scene.