• Opinion

A new controversy, naturally playing out in tweets from the governor and a TV station.

  • Opinion

“They were going a little too fast and they went over my airspace. I had my .20-gauge there, so I put two 7 1/2 birdshot shells in it, and there you are.”

  • Opinion

"Defendant, using the nickname 'The Drone Slayer,' continues to assert that he was justified in shooting Plaintiff’s aircraft and vows to do it again."

  • Opinion

So rules a Kentucky trial court judge.

  • Opinion

An interesting case from the New Mexico Supreme Court, which focuses on physical interference with the use of the land ("disturbance, excessive noise, and dust") more than on informational privacy.

  • Opinion

A man on a San Diego beach is annoyed by overflying drone, throws T-shirt at drone, which falls and is damaged. Is he guilty of criminal vandalism?

No First Amendment damages lawsuit based on that exclusion, a court says, in what seems to be the first court decision on the subject (but it likely won't be the last).

[UPDATE: The embedded video now works.]

I asked Prof. A. Michael Froomkin and Zak Colangelo, coauthors of the forthcoming article Self-Defense Against Robots to write up a brief summary of their thinking on the subject, and here it is. Very much worth reading, if you're interested in self-defense (including defense of property and privacy), drones, or both.

If it were over the shooter's own land, would this be legitimate defense against trespass? Even if it weren't on the shooter's land, but it was apparently photographing into the shooter's home or fenced-off property, would it be legitimate defense against the tort of "intrusion upon seclusion"?

Load More