What to Do About the South Philly Peeping "tommy"?

• Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania,United States,Federal
• Publication year: 2018
• Citation: Vol. 1 No. 5

James J. Quinlan^*

This article explores some issues associated with what to do about the modern-day version of Peeping Tom, an anonymous drone operator and a spying drone, within the framework of Pennsylvania privacy laws and federal regulations related to drones.

Approaching the December holiday season in 2017, consumer sales experts estimated that as many as three million small unmanned aircraft systems ("UAS" or "drones") would be shipped to purchasers in 2017. Others have projected that there will be over seven million drones operating in the United States by 2020. As such, the chance that you will more regularly see a drone flying nearby is strong and increasing in probability with every passing day. However, seeing the same drone from the ground as opposed to hovering just outside of your bedroom window is a whole other experience, and one that may become more common as drone use proliferates. Recently, bloggers in South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who were confronted with this disconcerting reality, took to the internet to alert others and discuss options for how to handle this "Peeping Tom" problem—a centuries-old issue that is being closely monitored by regulators and lawmakers as it evolves into a potential, unique 21st-century problem.

One evening in August 2017, a South Philly neighbor posted a Facebook blog known as the "Bold and Breezy" about seeing a drone near her bedroom window, and another neighbor immediately posted that he heard, via police radio, that a complaint about the drone had been called into the police. A few months later, on a December evening, just after midnight, another neighbor posted "peeping drone back." The late-night blogging banter followed with comments like:

"That's so creepy. In so many ways. Checking if someone's home and naked."

"It was definitely flying close to houses."

[Page305]

"Yikes."

"Get a pan and knock it out of the sky."

"Get yourself a Texas Flyswatter (see picture of aluminum trashcan lid) and go f*** that thing up, sugar!"

"They are opening a drone research facility (nearby) . . . wonder if it's theirs."

"Isn't that how SkyNet began? I hope people see the error of their ways soon, or at least before Judgment Day."

From this modern "town talk" version of a local Peeping Tom being discussed through strokes on keyboards and smartphones, a number of legal issues were raised by these neighbors regarding what to do about the modern-day version of Peeping Tom (referred to in this article as "Peeping Tommy"), an anonymous drone operator and a spying drone. This article will explore some of those issues within the framework of Pennsylvania privacy laws and federal regulations related to drones.

Background on Tom

It is common knowledge that the U.S. legal system is largely based on principles of English Common Law. But when it comes to U.S.-based anti-voyeur and anti-invasion of privacy laws, sometimes referred to as "Peeping Tom Laws," the derivative development of such laws takes on a double meaning given their ties to the 11th century, the Town of Coventry, England, the legendary mythical tale of Lady Godiva's naked horseback ride of protest through that town, and an infamous tailor named "Tom." As lore has it—and most scholars agree that this tale is heavy on lore and light on fact—Lady Godiva rode naked on her horse through Coventry to convince her husband, Lord Leofric III, to lessen the tax burden on the people of Coventry. Out of respect for Lady Godiva's modesty and in appreciation of her gesture of support for them, the people of Coventry remained indoors with doors and shutters closed during this medieval version of political streaking—except for a tailor named Tom. Tom, overcome with lust and curiosity, peeked through a hole in a shutter for a peep at Lady Godiva in her

[Page306]

birthday suit, and was...