Rapid Response seem to have been visited by one of them auditors

The starting point is that generally speaking you own the airspace above your property and an incursion into it would be a trespass. There's a statutory exemption at s.76 of the Civil Aviation Act which states that there won't be a trespass “by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable…”

The application of this with regard to drones is being developed via case law - there was a decision last year which held that the use of a drone by urban explorers did not fit within s.76. This was because they were taking photos and video which might encourage further trespass and it therefore wasn't reasonable.

I could see a similar analysis being adopted if a Court was presented with this knobhead.

 

What’s the difference between this (drone usage) and CCTV usage (reasonable reasoning).

 

Videoing people/things isn't a form of tort to begin with. Trespass is, and flights are only exempted from that if they fit within the statutory exemption.

It's not the videoing itself which is the "offence" so to speak. It's the trespass to airspace - it's that the videoing prevents the drone from falling within the exemption to trespass.

 

One is for security and in a fixed place that people have to move into to be seen by. One is for espionage and can travel to view people/places that are stationary.

 

Sorry, what I meant was it seems there some rules and regs that surround the usage of CCTV and why, so why doesn’t drone usage fall into the same/similar category?

 

I don't know for sure, but the answer is probably just because drones didn't exist at the time CTV regs were made so the wording wasn't drafted to capture them and they haven't been separately regulated yet.

 

How can a speed camera van cause you harassment, genuinely intreaged? They are usually placed in areas where people consistently speed

 

I would have thought that filming with a drone over someone's property without their permission was an unwarranted intrusion. ie trespass.

 

Poor bloke’s trying to make a living and some idiot turns up to wind him up. That Dom should have walked away sooner but can understand why he didn’t, hopefully it’s a lesson learned for him.

 

Probably a bad example by me, but i hate them non the less. (I have a clean license by the way, last fine was in 96)

 

Not sure how they can call themselves auditors? Last time I checked that was a profession that needed qualifications and admittance to a professional body. Flying a drone over someone's property and causing aggro doesn't seem to fit the bill.

 

Getting into niche areas here, but should they also be registering with the ICO if they're capturing people? Or does that fall under the same fuzziness.

 

Probably the best response!

 

I think it's because they aren't companies so they don't need to be. Or something like that

 

The lads at rapid are top lads who started with little and evolved in to a large company, I can understand some anger putting a video online showing stores of cables and other valuable equipment saves a lot of time for criminals knowing where its kept ,

 

If he’s gaining money from the video, doesn’t he need a professional pilot licence? I heard it was brought in to safeguard the wages of helicopter pilots….

 

If it's under 250g it's essentially classed as a toy and comes outside the regulations. Most of these 'auditors' use drones that weigh 249g for that reason

 

Dunno, I'm pretty useless when it comes to GDPR stuff