A Bay Area man lost his home insurance after the carrier took aerial photos of the "clutter" in his yard.

The article touches on that part actually right at the end:

As for legality of taking drone pictures over a house? California state law only forbids that if you’re specifically doing so as a sort of peeping tom.

NaN
link
fedilink
7
edit-2
1Y

Would’ve been nice if they explained it a bit more.

For example, California has some civil laws covering such things due to paparazzi using technology, but the key with those is the intent to capture people’s activities: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1708.8.&lawCode=CIV

Oh nice, that’s what I get for not reading it

Don’t be like reddit, read the articles before commenting my dude. I know it’s a difficult habit to break, but you’re less likely to end up looking like a fool and you get to poke fun at the people who obviously aren’t reading the articles either!

Yeah, I think it’s a proximity thing. The risk of a drone crashing over a yard is part of that factor I think, which makes sense. Imagine a big drone crashing on some kid’s head 😬

Create a post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

  • 1 user online
  • 144 users / day
  • 275 users / week
  • 709 users / month
  • 2.87K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 3.12K Posts
  • 65.1K Comments
  • Modlog