How Low Can Drones Go?

from the question-questions-questions dept

As we’ve pointed out in a few stories, drones aren’t necessarily something to worry about. Like any technology, they can be used for good and bad purposes, and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. But determining where exactly the line between acceptable and unacceptable lies is tricky, as the following story from the Capitol Hill Seattle blog shows:

This afternoon, a stranger set an aerial drone into flight over my yard and beside my house near Miller Playfield. I initially mistook its noisy buzzing for a weed-whacker on this warm spring day.

So how close does a drone have to be to someone’s home before it becomes intrusive? Clearly, at some height the air is part of the sky commons that belongs to everyone, as a famous 1946 US Supreme Court decision laid down:

The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea.

The post continues:

After several minutes, I looked out my third-story window to see a drone hovering a few feet away. My husband went to talk to the man on the sidewalk outside our home who was operating the drone with a remote control, to ask him to not fly his drone near our home. The man insisted that it is legal for him to fly an aerial drone over our yard and adjacent to our windows. He noted that the drone has a camera, which transmits images he viewed through a set of glasses. He purported to be doing “research”. We are extremely concerned, as he could very easily be a criminal who plans to break into our house or a peeping-tom.

Those sound like reasonable concerns. So does that mean that drones with cameras need to fly further away from the property of others than those without, so that the images they capture don’t invade people’s privacy? How might we set that distance? These and related questions are starting to be posed more frequently, as more drones enter our skies. At some point, we will need to start coming up with some answers that most people find reasonable.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or, and on Google+

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “How Low Can Drones Go?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:


If it’s OK for him to fly his toy around above your garden it’s got to be OK for you to fly yours.

I’d suggest taking an interest in air rifles, water fights or just throwing rocks. After all his drone has no more right to be there than anything else and is quite a bit more fragile.

horse with no name says:

Interesting question

I live in a very tall building, and we are near a flight path for helicopters to the airport. Often, they fly by about 500 feet out, and low enough that I can read the tops of them clearly. So the question isn’t just height, but “height over”.

You could also look at New York and their “air rights” over buildings. Another issue?

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Interesting question

It seems to me that the common sense answer would be that if you’re directly above someone’s land, but lower than the roof of a building on that land, you’re clearly trespassing.

If you’re higher than the buildings, you’re in the public highway.

Of course, even if you’re in the public highway, you might still be liable in the event of a noise complaint or for being a peeping tom.

Bt Garner (profile) says:

I don’t see how this is any different that trees and such. For example, if a neighbor has a tree in his yard but its branches stretch into my yard, I am entitled to prune those branches so that they do not damage my house. Even if I just find those branches to be a nuisance, I can still prune them. I believe the same policy would apply here. If you are damaging my property, or begin a nuisance, you should be entitled to correct the problem.

I would think a can of spray epoxy would be enough to take care of the problem.

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There are chemical solvents for many plastics, they’re used for things like shaping plastic objects and welding things together all without use of heat. Splash a little on and the plastic goes soft like taffy. You can easily deliver them with a squirt gun, so long as the gun is made of a plastic the solvent has no effect on.

Good luck trying to fly when your rotor strut is flopping around like a rubber band…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: privacy's dead

The problem in this instance of privacy is there still is a (quite) reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s own house. You shouldn’t be expected to have someone filming you without your knowledge in your own house.

In my opinion, any “drone” that points a recording device within range to get a decently clear picture or video should be considered trespassing. The problem is when technolgy keeps improving, that may turn from 50 ft to 500 ft pretty quickly….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: privacy's dead

Now if only all surveillance equipment could store everything forever, and make it absolutely transparently public, that would change the world for the better.

Because the data that models my whole life is worth less than the combined value of everyone else’s, and NO sane human can say that theirs is.

If the parties were on an equal footing, you might well be right. As things stand, private individuals may end up made of glass, while important government agencies stay pretty smoky.

out_of_the_blue says:

Well, at least there's some resistance here to spying.

But none have a practicable boundary, let alone solution.

Definition of intrustion can’t be limited to only when above your property, let alone when the drone operator is in sight, or known. Also, shooting one down even if over your property will only lead to tangles that you don’t want. — Just ask Iran about the grief they’ve gotten for shooting down spying US drones. — And the notion that you’re going to mount your own constant air defense is silly.

But there IS an easy definition of spying even in a public space, and that’s when stopped or practically so to focus on one location; applies to people, Google Glass, or drones.

Passing by might be okay (unless spying is the only purpose, as Google Streetview), but when stopped to ogle, it crosses over the creepy line. (And for the nit-pickers, that can be stretched when a public event, such as police arresting someone, but Google Glass in constant operation at a cocktail party, or a drone hovering in residential area has to be considered firmly out of bounds.)

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Well, at least there's some resistance here to spying.

You were so close to being logical, but you just had to drop it to make jabs at Google.

Now if we ignore your constant, insane ravings against Google, you’re right. We already have laws that could cover this, and laws against destroying things that happen to be flying over your house.

Added bonus: when I read this story a few days ago, that article went out of it’s way to mention the drone’s camera was pointed in the window. That runs afoul of laws that even cover cameras not on your property.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yeah, having something hovering in the yard, looking through a window of a house via camera… he calls it ‘research’, I’d call it voyeurism, no different than if he’d sneaked up and peeked through the windows directly.

The ‘spray it with water’ idea isn’t so much frying the circuits, as it is ‘knocking it out of the air with the water pressure by throwing it off balance’.

Anonymous Coward says:

“So does that mean that drones with cameras need to fly further away from the property of others than those without, so that the images they capture don’t invade people’s privacy?”

And how far away is that given that satellites can take pictures so detail that you can read a newspaper from space.

Spodula (profile) says:

According to..

According to Wikipedia, admittedly, not the best source, but a good start….

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Typically, in the “Uncontrolled” category of airspace, any pilot can fly any aircraft as low as he or she wants, subject to the requirement of maintaining a 500-foot (150 m) distance from people and man-made structures except for purposes of takeoff and landing, and not causing any hazard.

AB (profile) says:

Re: According to..

Do drones qualify as ‘aircraft’, and do we want them to?

I think a simpler solution would be to expand property lines to include a bubble 50 or 100 feet above the ground making it possible to trespass even while hovering above the ground. Then simple trespass laws take it from there. Including the property owner’s option to permit or deny entry as desired, and the ability of authorities to override those limits if needed.

It’s a matter of respect as much as anything else. Like anyone else they are welcome to take pictures from the roadway, but not from the window ledge.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: According to..

500 feet from any person or building sounds good. That would mean they’d either have to be 500 feet in the air, 500 feet to the side at ground level, or something like 350 in the air and 350 to the side. That’s far enough away that it doesn’t feel like someone is invading your space.

AB (profile) says:

Re: Re: According to..

Right now they have very little societal value so that would be fine, but there are a lot of potentially valuable uses for drones (using them for deliveries, home security systems, etc.) which will continue to emerge as the technology advances. Do we really want to eliminate that value? Especially since that won’t stop the bad guys.

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: According to..

There’s lots of potential uses for them beyond spyware, so I hope there isn’t a kneejerk reaction against the whole concept.

If anything, I think companies will push the other way, for rapid adoption, and then we’ll have to figure out how to keep them from constantly colliding with each other. But I suppose if the drones all have monitors, they can navigate through lower airspace full of flying objects.

Rob says:

Peeping Tom

I assume that most localities have “Peeping Tom” laws like we’ve got in my town. This case isn’t different in principle than if the guy were using other technology to look in the windows. Like a 20 foot stepladder. Or a periscope.

I think the appropriate response is to call the cops, report a peeping tom, let him do some research in the municipal court system.

For that matter, use of hobby R/C aircraft is also restricted to certain areas in some cities/towns/hamlets/etc. If there were such a law where the incident occurred, I see no reason it wouldn’t cover a “drone”, “drone” being just a particular kind of R/C aircraft. Again, the pilot could “research” this possibility in the municipal court setting as well.

But the “garden hose” solutions proposed in other posts also sound satisfying.

Administering an “ass whoopin'”, “ass kickin'”, “beat down” or other euphemism for assault and battery cannot be condoned for legal and safety reasons. A citizen would have to make their own judgement call if they could win the physical and legal fight if that were the approach used.

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:


Here is some material I dug up. The situation is pretty well undefined. The Federal Air Regulations are mostly concerned with safety. They offer clear directives for fixed-wing aircraft, but they are seriously unhelpful for helicopters. In particular, they don’t make a distinction between flying low with the intention to land, and flying low with the intention to pass over.
FLORIDA v. RILEY, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), 488 U.S. 445, a case where a police helicopter observed cannabis.

“Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley’s property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley’s greenhouse. The police officer did no more.” “Neither is there any intimation here that the helicopter interfered with respondent’s normal use of the greenhouse or of other parts of the curtilage. As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, and no wind, dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment.”



“If so, I think we could take judicial notice that, while there may be an occasional privately owned helicopter that flies over populated areas at an altitude of 400 feet, such flights are a rarity and are almost entirely limited to approaching or leaving airports or to reporting traffic congestion near major roadways. And, as the concurrence agrees, ante, at 455, the extent of police surveillance traffic cannot serve as a bootstrap to demonstrate public use of the airspace.”

Department of Energy Flight guidelines for security helicopters:

” g. Altitude Considerations.

(1) Routine Training and Operations.

(a) Daylight Operations. Aircraft shall maintain a minimum
altitude of 200 feet above any known obstacle within 500
feet either side of the planned route of flight during
daylight operations except for takeoff, approach, and

(b) Night and Night Vision Goggle Operations. Except for
takeoff, approach, and landing, aircraft shall maintain a
minimum altitude of 500 feet above ground level or 200
feet above the highest obstacle within 1,000 feet either
side of the planned flight route, whichever is higher.
When using night vision goggles, aircraft shall maintain
a minimum altitude of 300 feet above ground level or 200
feet above the highest obstacle within 1,000 feet of the
planned route of flight, whichever is higher.

(2) Hazard Mapping. Each aircraft shall be equipped with a map
displaying all identifiable hazards to flight within the
operating area. A map displaying all identifiable hazards to
flight and depicting elevation above ground level shall be
conspicuously posted in the mission planning area. Aircraft
maps and mission planning area maps shall be reviewed for
currency at least every 30 days and marked with the current

h. Terrain Flight (Nap of the Earth, Contour and Low Level). There
are three modes of terrain flight: contour, low level, and nap, of
the earth. Terrain flight is flight at 200 feet or less above the
highest obstacle on the intended flight path. Terrain flight and
night vision device/goggle flight are essential to DOE tactical and
security needs. Low level or, contour flight may provide a
tactical advantage in a security emergency. Nap of the earth
flight is not essential to the Department’s security needs and will
not be performed.

(1) Contour flight conforms with the contours of the earth and is
characterized by varying airspeeds and altitudes. Contour
flight altitudes are not less than 25 feet above the highest

(2) Low level flight is not less than 100 feet above the highest
obstacle. It is conducted at a selected altitude and
generally conforms to a predetermined course, with constant

(3) Nap of the earth flight is characterized by maneuvers as close
to the earth’s surface as vegetation, obstacles, or ambient
light will permit.”


Reference to: National Parks Overflights Act
defines a control zone, below 5000 ft. above ground level, in which regulation of air tour operators may take place.

specific prohibition on flying lower than 2000 ft above the rim in Yosemite

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

Re: Precedents.

Note that the Department of Energy guidelines quoted in my previous comment distinguish between “Normal Flying” and “Terrain Flying.” Normal flying is 200-300 feet above the ground or above a nearby obstacle. There is an exception made for landings and take-offs. Nap of the Earth flying is basically justified in military situations, ie., when flying in against machine guns, and trying to go low enough not to be hit. That is the business of Army Aviation, not of civilian government pilots. The next two stops up are 25 ft above the nearest obstacle, and 100 ft, ditto. Both of these are considered risky by definition. Note also that the National Parks Overflights Act claims quite substantial minimum altitudes, in a case where landing is not permitted.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Precedents.

Get real there is not one federal agency that gives a fuck about you or the Constitution, which makes all there so called rules and laws null and void. You are own your own brother and your government has become enemy fucking number one. There are no longer any rules or laws being followed, so load up sweetie and stand your ground and die.

artp (profile) says:

Re: Precedents.

Hot air balloons.

They are mostly seen serenely floating high in the sky. But they have to take off and land without any control of which direction they are going. And when they get in a competition, all bets are off.

If a hot air balloon gets above the tree line, the wind takes them where it wants to – same with terrain. I have seen a hot air balloon going up a ravine with half the air bag showing and none of the gondola. The same balloon was following a cow that was running for her life, kicking up her heels over rough terrain, with the occupants shouting “Nice cow! It’s OK, cow!”

I have a friend who had an electric fence knocked over by a hot air balloon. He had to put things back to rights before his cattle got out.

But hot air balloons, as well as Bambizilla, have great public images. It’s like attacking motherhood and apple pie if you complain about them.

To the commenters who wanted to shoot the drone and beat up the operator, it’s a natural reaction. Resist it with everything you’ve got. Assault is based on what the other person perceives, not on what you do. And if you get charged, then your property is at risk. It’s entirely backwards, but so is much of the US legal scenery.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I don't get this...

So would most people.

I’m actually amazed this guy got away without a broken jaw. Personally if I saw a drone flying low enough to peek in my windows and I knew where the guy was, I would take a picture of the drone, picture of the guy, and then bring the drone to the ground and see if I can collect footage from it (most of the camera on-board also do on-board recording). So if the guy goes to the police, I have proof he was using it maliciously.

Anonymous Coward says:

I think the rational solution is to build your own anti-drone drone. Possible attachments to include tazers, water cannons,
silly sting and more!

Better yet think of all the innovation it would cause via patents with the words “from a drone” at the end. Hell you could even film it and patent the business model for selling the films to double down on innovation!

GeneralEmergency (profile) says:

Water Blasts are nice, but...


A blast of water is nice but could prompt this very rude hobbyist to get angry and take a swing at you.

Being a FPV(First Person Video) MULTICOPTER (Not DRONE, please!) hobbyist and pilot myself I can tell you that while the control signals from the transmitter are fairly secure 2.4 gigahertz band frequency hopping transmissions, the video transmissions from the copter to the Pilot’s video goggles are simple FM (Frequency modulation) signals and are subject to jamming with a stronger signal. I can also tell you that the video is either on the 900mhz band or the 5.8 gigahertz band and more likely the latter.

The next time he shows up, send someone else down to ask interested party questions to get more technical information about his video link frequency. Then buy a 600mW transmitter you need. It will cost under $100. Buy a “board camera” too for $30. Install this setup near a window with the camera focused on a small sign that sends a “very special message” to your pest hobbyist.

Personally, I’d like to apologize to everyone about this guy. Virtually all of us FPV guys are just out having fun flying our model aircraft and are not interested in invading anyone’s privacy. Please don’t lump us in with this jerk.


Beech says:

Re: Water Blasts are nice, but...

Soundsike a costly and convoluted method. I would like it a lot more if we could see the video the drone was sending, then transmit it back at a slight delay with frequent pauses. Make the guy think his toy isnt flying right, or responding sluggishly. Bonus points if you make him crash it into a pool, then claim ownership under maritime salvage laws.

GeneralEmergency (profile) says:

Re: Re: Water Blasts are nice, but...


A matching receiver typically comes with the transmitter. Once again, both for less than $100. You could attach a USB Video capture dongle to the receiver and record some of his flight video on a notebook PC, then loop it back to him via your more powerful transmitter. This would likely confuse him enough to end the flight quickly in a crash. But work fast, his flight will typically last only 8 to 12 minutes.


out_of the_blow_and_into_AJ's_asscrack says:

okay, I finally see the privacy issues involved with a googular glass type device

But it involves other tech in addition to the googular glass type device, as just pointing them at random people at a party is no big deal to me.

As for drones looking in windows, that is no different from some clown with his pud in his hand peaking through your window whilst they crouch in the bushes.

btr1701 (profile) says:


> Clearly, at some height the air is part of
> the sky commons that belongs to everyone,
> as a famous 1946 US Supreme Court decision
> laid down

Yes, most states have set minimum altitude limits for aircraft, which allow for normal aviation, but also protect the rights of private property owners.

Basically, anything below the statutory altitude becomes a trespass. It’s why paparazzi and news helicopters in Los Angeles have to stay way up there when covering everything from celebrity weddings to Lindsay Lohan’s latest trek to the courthouse. They can zoom in with their cameras all they like, but the aircraft has to remain above 3000 feet (if I recall the number correctly).

I can’t imagine that the State of Washington doesn’t have some similar law, which would clearly make this drone flyer a trespasser. Even if they don’t, the homeowner is certainly free to knock the thing out of the air with a baseball bat…

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

Re: Drones

The Federal Air Regulations (Part 91.79 ) specifies a minimum altitude over towns, congested areas, congregations of people, etc., for fixed wing aircraft of 1000 feet over any obstacles within 2000 feet horizontal distance. In open country, or over water, the requirement shifts to 500 altitude, or 500 feet “from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.” The terms for helicopters are much vaguer, under the test of “hazard to persons or property.”

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: Drones

I hate to dribble out corrections like this, but the above items (91.119 and 91.195) apply when no other minimums are specified. In other words, they would apply to helicopters over urban areas, and it is doubtful whether they would apply to helicopters in rural/isolated areas, where fixed-wing aircraft have lower minimums.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Drones

Congress and the FAA could solve this problem quickly and easily. Just mandate a 1000-foot minimum altitude over private property, for all types of aircraft, regardless of whether it’s urban or rural.

That preserves both the property owner’s privacy and trespass rights, while still allowing for legitimate commercial aviation activities.

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Drones

Congress and the FAA could solve this problem quickly and easily. Just mandate a 1000-foot minimum altitude over private property, for all types of aircraft, regardless of whether it’s urban or rural.

That would eliminate many of the proposed uses for commercial drones, like deliveries. If drone use is going to be fully commercialized, it isn’t going to happen.

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Drones

To: btr1701:

One must recognize that the basis of the Federal Air Regulations is not property, but safety. The minimum altitudes are designed to prevent crashes. Of course, they are designed to prevent “joyriding,” ie. someone in a small private plane deciding he’s Chuck Yeager, and forgetting that the real Yeager had the United States Air Force behind him. More mundanely, the regulations prevent people who are not instrument-qualified from trying to scoot in under clouds which are only a couple of hundred feet above the ground. A typical sort of accident runs like the following: someone without an instrument rating tried to fly through one of the passes in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, or the Sierra Madre/San Gabriel Mountains. Only, the cloud base was below the pass altitude that day. The pilot flew up a valley which became a canyon, and became narrower and narrower, and the ground beneath came up, and the clouds came down, to the point that he no longer had room to turn back, and he flew into a mountainside. The effect of Parts 91.119 and 91.195, is that the pilot has to quit while he still has room to turn back.

Bear in mind that the aircraft regulations do not apply to to unlicenced consumer drones, which are considered toys. The one Federal rule which applies to them is that they are supposed to stay below 400 ft, leaving a hundred feet of separation between them and a real airplane at 500 feet or above. I believe that they are also supposed to be kept within line of sight from the operator. This seems like something which is liable to be evaded, so it could probably be improved by specifying an actual maximum horizontal distance and an altitude/distance table. And of course, make the manufacturers build these restrictions into the control system. That won’t stop a hacker, but it will at least contain the idiots. I suspect that the man in Seattle qualifies as an idiot.

As for Papparazis, I have an idea that a sophisticated camera can probably compensate for distance.

To: Suzanne Lainson:

I don’t think the delivery-by-drone thing is going to work. For one thing, the drone has to put the parcel somewhere the recipient can retrieve it, and that probably means flying into a location where people are walking around. Practically speaking, you need to put a parcel under a porch, or in a mailbox, or wherever, where it can be protected from the elements. There are various different ways of going about it, but they are all more or less expensive, and generally more complicated than driving a truck to the recipient’s door. Pilots spend a lot of time worrying about winds and clouds and rain, because an aircraft rides on the air, and the air moves. It’s more like sailing a sailboat than driving a car. If United Parcel only delivered when the sky was blue, it would be a hopelessly inefficient service.

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Drones

You’re right that delivery by drone may not be as practical as using a truck, though there are plans to use drones to drop beer to fans at a music festival.

Are Beer Drones the Future of Music Festivals? A Q&A With Darkwing Aerial’s Dean Engela | Billboard

I can see it being used to drop supplies in remote areas, too.

Rekrul says:

So how close does a drone have to be to someone’s home before it becomes intrusive? Clearly, at some height the air is part of the sky commons that belongs to everyone, as a famous 1946 US Supreme Court decision laid down:

The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea.

If that’s true, why do you need special permits to fly model aircraft over a certain size or launch large rockets?

Orvel Sternberg (profile) says:

Oh for the drones!

Who woulda thunk it? First, we have our good friends at Google doing the ‘mapping’ thing with their vehicles. Really didn’t think much of that as it went on. Seemed kinda tame, don’t you think? Then comes along drones, who have the ability to levitate over our property and easily look into out windows and back yards. Now that’s a horse of a different color. Should we be paranoid over this? I don’t think paranoid is probably the best word to apply to this. I’m thinking ‘damn concerned’ actually, especially after the comment by the man flying a drone up next to the windows, and stating that he ‘ has a right ‘ to do that. If, and I truly mean IF , we lived in a world where everyone obeyed the laws, respected each others privacy, and never used ill gotten information to harm others, THEN I would not be concerned with the drones. But that certainly is not the case. I foresee all kinds of ways that individuals and companies will use the drones to invade our privacy and use the information gained through this method to wreak havoc and criminality on society.
There has to be some limits put on the drones.
Anyone agree or disagree with me?

BobEngineer says:

Unlicenced aircraft

FAA does allow licensed aircraft to fly over your property. The FAA also allows remote controlled to be operated within 500 feet of operator over there own property or public property. I suggest posting your property as NO Trespassing and the next time the peeping tom camera appears photo graph it and operator and have them charged with trespass and peeping.

Theo clark says:

Drone research

In response to your article, I think that things are getting way out of control with drones and the sheer panic in individuals that feel that their privacy is threatened. Now hear this from me an electrical engineer: Fight fire with fire. We know that drones are radio controlled and if we disrupt that signal they cannot fly or the operator will lose control. Most of the transmitters squawk in the MHz-sub GHz band region so all you will need is a linear amplifier (1000 watts or better) and a spectrum transmitter and just block the drones communication frequency when it appears over your property. Works for me! Free drones for everyone.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...