No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

Flagler Beach Is Proposing Draconian Restrictions and Prohibitions on Drones

| February 9, 2017

flagler beach drones

Not in Flagler Beach. (© FlaglerLive)

“I got a call from a resident about a drone hovering over her backyard,” Flagler Beach City Commission Chairman Jane Mealy said at the commission’s Jan. 12 meeting. “She was very unhappy about that. I don’t blame her.” City Attorney Drew Smith proposed presenting a draft ordinance regulating drone use to the commission at a future meeting.

That draft ordinance is now before commissioners. (See it in full below.) It is an almost word-for-word reproduction of the ordinance the Orlando City Council approved unanimously at its Jan. 23 meeting, after the city’s police department requested it, and against much oppositions from drone enthusiasts and businesses that have turned to drones as an aid in their work. But Flagler Beach’s ordinance goes even further than Orlando’s. (See Orlando’s ordinance in full here.)

Flagler County and Palm Coast have no drone ordinances. “We go by state and federal regulations,” a Palm Coast spokesperson said.

The ordinance before Flagler Beach city commissioners is a draconian set of regulations, restrictions and prohibitions that would make vast areas of the city off limits to drones without a permit from the city or permission from private businesses, schools or other property owners enumerated in the ordinance.

“I think the question is why, for me, and that’s going to be a good discussion this evening,” City Manager Larry Newsom said this afternoon. He had not read the ordinance in detail nor discussed it with Drew Smith, the city attorney, but was aware of Orlando’s, and state discussions about drone regulations. “I’m not going to say it’s just one resident because it’s part of the League of Cities’ concerns as well,” Newsom said.

Drones, he said, are in increasing use, and pose a challenge for residents and local governments when it comes to establishing a line between what is private and public. But enforcement is also a challenge any time a government comes up with an ordinance that would require more of it, he said. “You have to be very careful when you try to adopt things that require enforcement,” Newsom said.

The seven-page ordinance, again copying Orlando’s word for word, begins with a set of recitals that summarize the increasing use of drones through “a vibrant community of hobbyists, and impacted commercial applications in a profound way that can positively stimulate growth and increase economic efficiency for a diverse and expanding array of businesses.” The proposed ordinance states Flagler Beach’s “wishes to increase the ability of hobbyists and commercial users to operate unmanned aircraft.”

Then it proceeds to lay out restrictions, prohibitions and requirements that would do the exact opposite.

Flagler Beach is already a no-fly zone absent permission from the airport. So why seek draconian measures?

The ordinance would prohibit the flying of drones within 500 feet of any “enclosed building owned or operated by the City of Flagler Beach,” which would then include such places as the Pier, City Hall, city utility facilities, the fire department, the police department and any other location with an enclosed structure. (The Orlando ordinance, in comparison, does not have as broad a prohibition. Rather, it lists specifically the five “venues” that are off limits without a permit, leaving open the council’s authority to add other venues. Those include the Amway Center and the Citrus Bowl.)

The Flagler Beach ordinance would prohibit, absent a permit from the city, flying drones within 500 feet of any public assembly of 50 people or more, which could theoretically include such news events of public concern as the recent gathering of federal, state and local officials surveying the damage left behind by Hurricane Matthew, the gatherings of First Friday at Veterans Park, or Flagler Beach’s Christmas and July 4 parades.

Remarkably, the proposed ordinance would also ban the use of drones (absent a permit) from within 500 feet of any park, which would mean that even someone flying a drone over the Intracoastal Waterway would be prohibited from doing so near Betty Steflik Park, for example, or much of downtown, because of the presence of Veterans Park. The ordinance also would prohibit drones within 500 feet of day care centers, public or private schools, pre-schools, medical clinics, hospitals, and urgent care centers, without permission from those institutions’ administrators. The city’s authority to impose such regulations is unclear.

Finally, the proposed ordinance prohibits flying drones “to secretly observe another person when the other person is located in a dwelling, structure or conveyance where such location provides a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

“That’s the part I like,” Mealy said this afternoon, referring to the call from a Flagler Beach resident that had prompted her concern. She is also looking to protect children. But many of the other parts of the ordinance, such as the restrictions over public buildings, did not elicit the same reaction from here. “I did feel it was a little bit too restrictive.”

And there’s the problem of enforcement. “I have that question too, I had that question when I first brought up the issue,” Mealy said. “How does that get enforced, I have no idea.”

The prohibitions exempt government drones, as it does drone operators who have authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration to fly drones.

The proposed penalty in the ordinance would be a code enforcement violation, not a criminal violation, but it gives authority to police or code enforcement officers to seize drones in violation of the ordinance. The penalty clause is overly vague, leaving it to a police officer or code enforcement to make the determination of violations but without defined standards: it’s not easy to measure distances in the air.

“If they decide you’re in violation of something, they can just take your stuff,” said Jon Hardison, a Palm Coast business owner who flies a drone (and has shot footage for FlaglerLive). The proposed ordinance, he said, is counterproductive on many levels, redundant, and damaging to the sort of enforcement that would foster a better drone culture.

jon hardison

Jon Hardison.

“The first thing that’s really, really important to note is that Flagler Beach from its northernmost border, all the way down to pretty much within a couple of feet of Gamble Rogers park, where you can’t fly, is all within the five-miles radius of the airport,” Hardison said. “That basically means that for every flight that’s occurred without getting clearance from the airport has been illegal. Every single one. You basically can’t fly in Flagler Beach right now. You can, if you ask the airport for permission, but most people aren’t doing that.”

The Federal Aviation Administration has been issuing fines to drone pilots, overwhelmingly on the East Coast. “So they already have the mechanism for enforcement,” Hardison said. “The police can go to anyone today and say: did you call this in, and they can check with the airport. Now, that area is just based on the Flagler County Airport. The hospital heliport is actually closer to the water, so that actually makes the area larger. You have no viable area where you can launch and land. So them doing this really doesn’t make any sense.”

FAA fines aren’t cheap: $1,100. Many operators won’t risk it. The federal system also plays a large role in overall safty and record management.

“All of these violations, fines, incidents, crash reports and so on and so forth, they’re all supposed to end up in one bucket so they can make sense of all of it, so they can monitor this group,” Hardison said. If localities start changing the rules on their own, “every single time you cross an invisible line, you’re going to have to be incredibly aware of it.”
“What I would like to see is for them to develop something less predatory and more fostering of a culture of responsible UAV use,” Hardison continued. “They’re not assuming responsibility. The greatest likelihood is over-enforcement,” with the information the FAA needs not ever making it to the agency. Hardison also sees over-enforcement as motivated by potential fines, not responsibility. “I have no issue with strict enforcement of the rules, I think it’s a huge part of this, but the answer isn’t who gets to the head of the line on who gets these pilots’ money, because that’s really all this does.”

The proposed ordinance is up only for discussion tonight—not a vote on first reading. It would likely have to go before the city’s Planning and Architecture Review board first, Newsom said, and be advertised for a public hearing before the commission.

Flagler Beach’s proposed ordinance to regulate drones (2017).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

45 Responses for “Flagler Beach Is Proposing Draconian Restrictions and Prohibitions on Drones”

  1. USA Lover says:

    Of course they’re prohibiting drones. They prohibit everything else and of course including fast food places that would put their over-priced “eateries” out of business. I avoid that hell hole like the plague. Nothing to see here folks.

  2. Sw says:

    Good go fly them in the woods

  3. Jon Hardison says:

    Man I talk weird. LOL!

    It seems clear to me that Flagler Beach and possibly Orlando really have no idea how to manage the situation and it makes sense. There has been so much motion in the laws over the past two years it is no wonder things like this are happening.

    What I’d really like to see is more robust reporting on the issue, but from citizens and law enforcement.
    I’d like to see pilots get involved in the conversation not because they want to protect their right to fly but because they want to enhance local and visiting pilots’ ability to do so safely, responsibly and respectfully.

    There is surely more to be gained by centralizing information and enforcement in Flagler County. Why would a citizen first contact Jane when a drone flew into her backyard? The real answer is probably that she didn’t know what else to do. They may not have known if they had grounds to contact law enforcement. That, in and of itself, is a huge problem.

    Drones are going to be a problem moving forward. No one can deny that.
    One of a number of things we’re left to ponder is if good, responsible pilots are ultimately going to be the ones paying for that problem. This ordinance would greatly increase the likelihood of that outcome and it’s wrong.

    We can do better and I’d invite members of local and county government to reach out to pilots directly in an effort to understand ALL the issues. Responsible, safe pilots want the same things the city and citizenry do.

  4. PeachesMcGee says:

    Insurance? That in itself just precluded 99.8% of all operators.

    Welcome to Communism.

  5. tulip says:

    All those people that complained that traffic cams invaded their “privacy” don’t seem to mind that drones can fly onto a person’s private home property and possibly take pics through the windows, etc and be nosy about what a person is doing? It doesn’t bother people that more and more of these drones are going to be flying and some will crash or break something, or distract a driver? It doesn’t bother people that others can use these drones to see what homes are vacant because owners are away, or if children live there and a pedophile will be able to see that? With the exception of certain types of businesses related to real estate or businesses that need aerial shots of an area and law enforecement to help catch a criminal. I don’t understand why they are allowed to be used for recreational purposes only. If that’s the case, then set up a place where people can fly them in safety and not bother anyone. They used to have places were people could fly their model planes, why not drones?

  6. palmcoaster says:

    Drones are to be banned from residential areas! We all have our right to privacy!! Way to go FB!

  7. Diane J Cline says:

    Very scary that a complaint from one person can turn into an ordinance…

  8. palmcoaster says:

    The first time a drone will down a commercial aircraft maybe then the FAA will not be so eager to license them with total flying colors! Drones also can cause injuries to people on the ground! Enough that we have to deal with private aircraft not carrying insurance if they wish to as I understand is not mandatory by FAA standards…if I am wrong please feel free to enlighten me. Can we all imagine to go thru the same miseries that the lady owner of the first house burned down by an out of control mechanical failed aircraft were the 3 occupants also died, had to go thru with no home, no money to confront a lost burned out house and all her personal items on it? Depending on the community charity to survive and just lucky to escape the hit with her life? So if we have one of these wealthy fly boys without insurance then we have to rely Gods know for how long in the charity, benevolence of community and church help after loosing our homes?

  9. Veteran says:

    So if my grandkids are flying a drone and they accidentally drift over the neighbors yard they can be fined $1,100? Ridiculous.

  10. The Ghost of America says:

    Insurance is a financial product, meaning if you don’t have the cash to buy into it then you’re out of luck. Sounds like the free market and not communism to me, if it were communism you’d be provided with it.

  11. Flagler beach goer says:

    How many us have seen motorized piloted ultra lite planes flying right above beach goers? Lots in summer flying fromOrmand Beach north along the beach doing loop d loops over beach goers. Disturbing wildlife especially over North Penninsula state park and Gamble Rogers. May be these aircraft need to be added to the Ordinance.

  12. Privacy already gone says:

    Why would we outlaw fun flying drones? This is today’s technology with cameras. Should we outlaw telescopes to look at people on the beach and in homes windows? What about go pros at the beach around crowds or at parades? Phones taking video, should we outlaw them within 500 ft of government offices and parks too? Come on FB, get a life and think about your laws and ordinances.

  13. MothersWorry says:


    This city doesn’t have the wherewithal to enforce the ordinance for keeping unleashed dogs off the beach. Dogs are on the ground. How are they going to enforce a ordinance on something in the air?

  14. Ws says:

    No drones near private property!! Let people live in peace for goodness sakes. Go fly a drone in Ocala!

  15. Sherry says:

    Look.. . two or three or four wrongs do not make a “right”! I STILL protect my very sacred PRIVACY!!! I cover the camera on my lap top. . . as you ALL should be doing. I refuse to buy a television that watches and listens to me.. . . as you ALL should be doing. MY privacy is not “already gone” because I protect it!!

    A telescope or a phone is not the same as a drone! There is a very slender line between drones that carry cameras and those that carry high powered listening devises. . . or even weapons. And, NO. . . I do not trust every single person that controls a drone to be “self regulating” and respect my privacy and safety!

    Drones ABSOLUTELY need to be highly regulated by our government!

  16. Sherry says:

    READ 1984 by George Orwell! Also, read this article very carefully:

  17. Concerned hobbyist says:

    Sherry, you are also misinformed. Have you “personally” seen what a drone is capable of? When someone that doesn’t know anything about drones hear the word “drone”, they immediately and automatically think of “invading privacy”. I guarantee you the 99% drone operators are either flying for fun or business, not looking through a window. I’m not saying there are not idiots who misuse it, I’m just saying in everuthing, there will always be bad apples. And you want to tear down that tree, just because of a few bad apples. And there are already rules and regulations for drones. Just people new to the hobby most likely do not know them (yet).

  18. Lin says:

    I’m with you on this tulip, palmcoaster and Sherry

    There’s a big difference between regulating someone’s telescope in their home and a flying drone peeking in windows, predators & thieves, or just nosy people, and the hazards to aircraft, wildlife or anyone in the way when they go off course or worse when they are purposely used for nefarious purposes. Drones have already been used as weapons. Yes, there are fun benign uses, but what about the other uses?

    This is going to be tough to regulate.

  19. Chris Brumbaugh says:

    I spend money wherever I’m out flying the drone for the day.
    I’m respectful of people and airspace, if you screw up photography for me, after the substantial investment I’ve made in this, there’s going to be pushback. I’m not happy.

  20. brian says:

    so if a drone flys over my property, can i shoot it down without fear of prosecution?

  21. Chris Brumbaugh says:

    You are absolutely correct, I don’t even care what people are doing, the scenery at the beach, birds and dolphins.
    This in turn gets shared with everyone at no cost on Facebook,

    This is why I give anyone around a demonstration, explain wide angle lenses, show how focus changes to 170° feild of view
    How built in safety features will bring it home if anything is detected on board, range limitations, max ceiling of 400′ AGL
    Certifications, registration with the FAA.
    Also automatic Do Not Fly Zones as issued by the FAA
    The list goes on and on, why this should not apply to hobbiest or small commercial drones, this has been covered by FAA Part 107 drone law.

    Flagler, pay attention.

  22. brian says:

    sherry, you are on the money!!!

  23. Sherry says:

    I’ve done my research, have you? Ya know what, I don’t need to “personally” see a nuclear bomb to know I don’t want one near my home.

    Even “Republican” Rand Paul is concerned about drones and our privacy rights:

    Here’s another article about the potential of spying:

  24. Sherry says:

    Thanks Brian and Lin!

    Here’s the thing. . . as with everything else. . . rules and regulations MUST be applied equally to everyone. The rule of law cannot be “subjective”. While I concede that, “currently” the majority of drone owners have no nefarious “intentions”, such technology is extremely ripe for abuse.

    Even if only 10% of the drone owners use them in a way that invades privacy or creates a safety hazard. . . that is an unacceptable invasion of “my” 4th amendment rights:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    And YES. . . your drone using a camera or listening device near my person, or home is an illegal search, if you do not have my permission.

    As far as enforcement is concerned, 80% of regulations are self enforced by knowledgeable, law abiding citizens who “still” desire to “do the right thing” by upholding reasonable and considerate societal norms.

  25. Concerned hobbyist says:

    I agree that rules and regulations MUST be applied and weed out the people that misuse them. But you also have to understand the FAA is lacking the man power to enforce their rules. It’s sad. And us, Hobbyist have to help them educate people on drones, rules and safety and of course the penalties if used illegally.

    Instead of attacking, why not help? I plan on putting a presentation for my local Sheriff’s department in hopes to better educate them different types of drones, their capabilities and the rules and regulation.

    Here arejust a couple of facts that you may or may not know.

    1) It is a federal crime to shoot a drone in the sky.
    2) if you plan on flying (safely of course) within 5 miles of an airport, you simply “inform” them, not ask permission, where you will be flying, how low of an altitude you will be flying and for how long.
    3)If your drone weighs more than half a pound, you must register yourself to the FAA and they will issue your registration number to stick on any drone you own that weighs more than a half a pound.
    4)If there is a drone above your property, there are privacy laws that may be invoked, but you’d have to prove intent. FAA has no regulation against flying over personal property.

    I can add more, but I think this is good enough for now.

  26. Sherry says:

    Our point exactly. . . . if the FAA has no regulation over flying over personal property. . . those regulations must be established and implemented by local and hopefully state governments. Thank you, Flagler Beach commissioners, for working to protect our safety and privacy!

  27. Concerned hobbyist says:

    I don’t know if you heard, but today the FL Senate just issued a better ordinance for all cities of FL. So I’m sorry to say that the Flagler Beach can’t issue anything. Once it is issued and passed, all the cities that took the law into their own hands will be null and void.

  28. Sherry says:

    Take a look at this Reuters poll on drones. . . the vast majority of Americans obviously have some serious concerns:

  29. Smokey the Bear says:

    What about model rockets, guess we shouldn’t do that either! That’s been a cool activity for kids for 50 years! I’m going to fly my drone over City Hall, and video all the officials!

  30. Bluskyone says:

    So the legality of this very sketchy at best. They can limit where you take off and land from be it public property, However they cannot limit the air. So they can ban or require a permit to take off and land in a local park. However, they can not prohibit taking off and landing outside the park and flying over it. Both Orlando and Flagler ordinances are unconstitutional and will be challenged based on this supreme court case.

  31. Concerned hobbyist says:

    Bluskyone, unfortunately, yes. And because these drones and it’s rules and regulations have been in it’s infancy for the past 2 to 3 years, it can only get worse or better. Depending on, NOT just the FAA, but from the communities.

    People that don’t know the hobby or don’t know drones that well (like proven from some previous comments) are not helping the situation at all. There HAS to be some kind of way to properly educate everyone the ins and outs, instead of just hiding behind the computer and complain about something they do bot umderstand.

    Perfect example is when cameras were introduced to cell phones back in 2000. It stirred up an outrage about invading privacy and “spying” capabilities, etc… Look at it now. It is the standard and norm. Technology is not going to stop.

    Drones are not going anywhere. It is only getting bigger and bigger in popularity. The government couldn’t stop it, so they decided to add rules.

    All the complaining is just beating a dead horse. So educate youself and help trying to find ways to let the hobbyists enjoy their hobby and work on eliminating the bad apples instead of chopping the whole darn tree.

  32. Vic Moss says:

    Flaggler Beach politicians, you are headed for a law suit if you pass this. You have ZERO authority to pass and enforce regulation that attempt to regulate the National Airspace System. This isn’t even the same wording Orlando passed. And even Orlando will be sued. We’re simply waiting for the Singer v. Newton MA suit to be settled. Once Dr. Singer wins (& he will), we will use that as ammo to file suit after suit against cities and states who violate the 1958 Federal Aviation Act, and it’s power granted by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

    You’d be idiots to pass this, and if you do, I suggest you increase the pay of your city attorney. He’ll be busy in the coming months.

    Do you research, and save the good citizens of Flagler Beach from having to dip into their pockets (tax increase) to pay for your ignorance and incompetence.

  33. Wes says:

    I wonder how much the city will be billed from their attorney for “drafting” an ordinance “word for word” from another city. Good work if you can get it.

  34. Matt Swinden says:

    Just to clarify Hardison’s quotes – Flying as a hobbyist, you do not need to obtain permission from the airport, but to only notify the airport of the flight – and that is 24 / 7. If flying commercially under Part 107, since there is Class D airspace surrounding the airport that only covers part of Flagler Beach when the tower of the airport is open, operators need to obtain an airspace authorization, otherwise they are free to fly when the tower is closed and the airspace Class G at the surface.

  35. Matt Swinden says:

    brian says:

    February 10, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    so if a drone flys over my property, can i shoot it down without fear of prosecution?

    No that would be a Federal violation of Title 18 SS32….with a penalty of up to $250K and / or 20 years in prison.

  36. says:

    Why don’t they fine people flying kites, or photographers amateur or professional using a zoom lens? Better yet anyone using binoculars? As long as we fly “within” the FAA regs, have our FAA number and even have the insurance from the AMA, what’s the problem? Drone pilots hobby and professional is here to stay! Wave of tomorrow! Officials…, let’s all work together….proactively!!

  37. Sherry says:

    As a photographer, I can tell you that there ARE legal restrictions and lawsuits all the time concerning the publication of photographs of people and businesses and historic places, etc. We do have constitutional rights of “privacy” that should continue to be protected by our government!

  38. Matt Swinden says:

    Sherry says:

    February 12, 2017 at 9:58 am

    As a photographer, I can tell you that there ARE legal restrictions and lawsuits all the time concerning the publication of photographs of people and businesses and historic places, etc. We do have constitutional rights of “privacy” that should continue to be protected by our government!

    Photography is also protected under the 1st Amendment. But when an individual is in a public place, the US Supreme Court has ruled that there is no expectation of a right to privacy.

  39. Sherry says:

    First of all. . . having your drone photograph me at my home is NOT a public place!

    Second of all. . . it’s NOT that simple. . . and law suits are definitely being considered by the courts. . . for example, this from USA Today:

    SAN FRANCISCO — A San Francisco federal judge rejected Facebook’s request to toss a lawsuit alleging its photo-tagging feature that uses facial recognition technology invades users’ privacy.

    U.S. District Judge James Donato allowed the case to move forward against Facebook under an Illinois law that bans collecting and storing biometric data without explicit consent.

    “The Court accepts as true plaintiffs’ allegations that Facebook’s face recognition technology involves a scan of face geometry that was done without plaintiffs’ consent,” Donato wrote in Thursday’s ruling.

    Facebook launched the photo-tagging tool in 2010. It automatically matches names to faces in photos uploaded to the social network.

    In 2008, Illinois passed a Biometric Information Privacy Act, that requires companies to get consent from consumers before collecting or storing biometric data, including “faceprints,” which is what companies such as Facebook and Google use to identify people in photos.

    In March, Google was hit with a lawsuit alleging its photo-tagging system violates Illinois law.

    In the case against Facebook, the plaintiffs say they never gave permission for Facebook to use their faces as biometric identifiers.

    Facebook argues that photo-tagging is disclosed in its terms of service and that users can opt out of it at any time. It also contended the Illinois law does not apply because its “faceprints” are derived from photographs.

    “The statute is an informed consent privacy law addressing the collection, retention and use of personal biometric identifiers and information at a time when biometric technology is just beginning to be broadly deployed,” Judge Donato wrote. “Trying to cabin this purpose within a specific in-person data collection technique has no support in the words and structure of the statute, and is antithetical to its broad purpose of protecting privacy in the face of emerging biometric technology.”

    There’s a HUGE difference between editorial use and commercial use of a photograph taken even in a public place. There is much more latitude for editorial use. . . but, for any commercial purposes at all a “model release” is always required. I can tell you from personal experience, Getty Images has been successfully sued before is extremely careful about such things! Take at look at this from a photographer’s web site:

    It’s illegal to take photos of people when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, when they’re in the safety of their own homes, when they’re in a hospital room, or when they’re sitting on a toilet — even if the restroom is a public one.

    Some states, like Texas, make it illegal to take non-consent photos (whether public or private) if it’s with an intent towards sexual desire or gratification. Otherwise, photos taken in public are acceptable within the law as long as the resulting photo isn’t used in a commercial way. For that, you’ll need a model release form.

    However, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you should always take the shot. If someone really doesn’t want their picture taken, the decent thing to do would be to respect their wishes. Wait for them to pass or skip the shot altogether.

  40. Anonymous says:

    WOW al this hub bub about something that is NOT happening at a large rate. We aired have laws on the books about invasion of privacy. If one is using a drone to take photos of another in their privet residence THAT should be the crime not another flying a drone a TOY in the air in a park or over NON privet lands

  41. Chris Brumbaugh says:

    There are more airplanes and helicopters with better equipped cameras, that you should worry about.
    Before you get upset read and understand the federal laws that are in place, we are not interested in what you are doing.

    Worry about actual surveillance and data collection by the government, local, state and federal… These are the people that are looking at you.

    You are being filmed constantly while you carry around your smartphone, seriously get clued in, hobbiest model aircraft have no interest in your life..

  42. Privacy already gone says:

    What about the video cameras installed all up and down the intracoastal by the city of FB? What about Google Earth where there are people on the pictures. Not that I don’t protect my privacy, I’m just stating why are we going after drones when everything else is highly acceptable. Drones can’t flip their cameras 90 degrees sideways to take pictures inside your home.

  43. Privacy already gone says:

    And how about the satellites that do the same thing as a drone? Just saying it’s odd that everyone will target 1 thing but not nsnyvothers. If you want your privavcy, put up drapes!

  44. Privacy already gone says:

    Why don’t we outlaw computers with video, or tvs with cameras or smart phones or GoPros? We don’t because there are good or fun uses for them just as drones. BUT what we should do is take care of our own privacy, not try to ban outlaw or control.

Leave a Reply

FlaglerLive's forum, as noted in our comment policy, is for debate and conversation that adds light and perspective to articles. Please be courteous, don't attack fellow-commenters or make personal attacks against individuals in stories, and try to stick to the subject. All comments are moderated.

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive

FlaglerLive Email Alerts

Enter your email address to get alerts.


support flaglerlive palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam
news service of florida
FlaglerLive is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization | P.O. Box 254263, Palm Coast, FL 32135 | Contact the Editor by email | (386) 586-0257 | Sitemap | Log in