We don't know enough to judge. As a quad pilot, I have to question the man's intentions. The statements in the article are entirely one-sided. We haven't heard the woman's statements yet. Was he flying there simply because of open space or was he targeting her?
If he was, I'm on her side.
There are many good comments in this thread. As an owner and flyer of several such UAV's (unmannikined aerial vehicles) with cameras, I'll offer my own observations, please.
First, the article describing the incident seems one-sided. The pilot has the stage, and the "assaulting" woman has none. The pilot's statements seem cleverly contrived, such as "some crazy lady came over and started taking pictures of me, and dialed 911 for the 3rd time in 15 minutes."
Tell me please how he knows that? My smartphone has a camera, and I'd have to be fully prepared to take such video as that presented while being assaulted while obviously absolving ones right to defend ones self.
That being said, one has to question the man's motives. Was he flying in that locale because of simple open space? Was he hovering over people who were exposing their bodies to UV sunlight? Was the quadcopter FPV (first person view) indicating that he knew exactly what the camera was recording, or was it flown by si
You might also wish to read (d) where it states the limitations of (c) which you quoted. Did (c) or (d) apply in this case? Did the flight even occur under FAA jurisdiction?
A "raw" video is a simple form of documentation, but anything you'll see online is at the very last edited to create an impression of one kind or another ... legally, even youtube's transcribing as a flash video "flv" constitutes editing. Any youtube video legally presented has been "edited", so relax a bit please.
