The other day, I used the Slog drone to spy on Paul Constant while he was reading in Volunteer Park.

Afterward, Mr. Constant took the matter to the high court of Twitter and declared:

Mr. Constant said later that he meant his "civil liberties." Either way, a ruling seemed necessary.

So, I took the case of Slog drone vs. Paul Constant to an expert on robotics and the law, the Seattle City Attorney's Office, and the local ACLU. None of them could come up with a specific law that I'd broken by using this off-the-shelf Parrot AR.Drone to read over Mr. Constant's shoulder in a public park.

If you're concerned about where personal drone technology is going, you should take a moment to hear why.

I began with the expert on robotics and the law, Ryan Calo, who used to be with the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and is now at the University of Washington.

"In general," Calo told me, "one does not enjoy an expectation of privacy in public that society is prepared to accept as reasonable. But, there are limits. So-called 'up skirt' laws, for instance, prohibit certain deeply offensive photography in public."

The record in this case will reflect, however, that I did not use the drone to look up Mr. Constant's skirt. And, Calo adds: "I would note that Paul's civil rights were probably not implicated as you are not a government actor."

This was private drone vs. private citizen action.

And the legality of such private drone vs. private citizen action, Calo said, "would vary by jurisdiction."

Which led me next to the people who handle this jurisdiction.

"The Washington Privacy Act restricts audio recording of certain conversations without consent of everyone involved," said John Schochet, spokesman for the Seattle City Attorney's office.

That's interesting, but this drone doesn't record audio. Just video. Of Paul. From above. While he's reading.

"I’m not aware of any Seattle law that would prohibit taking still photographs or silent video of someone in a public place," Schochet told me.*

Next, I got in touch with the Seattle office of the ACLU.

When it comes to drones operated by private individuals, spokesman Doug Honig told me, "there is no specific law that regulates how personal drones may be used in public—excepting Washington’s 'two-party consent' law [aka the above-mentioned Privacy Act], which means they cannot record audio without someone’s permission. There are, however, laws which limit the ability of people to invade the privacy of others in public places—anti-stalking laws, laws on voyeurism, etc.—and individuals who believe their privacy has been invaded by private use of drones could bring civil tort actions."

Honig and the ACLU, like many others, have lately been more focused on potential government uses of drones. That's because, as he told me:

Government entities have far greater powers than private individuals, and without strong regulations, there is the clear potential for government misuse of drones in ways that would harm people. The ACLU was very disappointed that legislation to provide reasonable regulations for government use of drones statewide, which had strong bipartisan support, did not pass in Olympia due to opposition by Boeing. We will continue to push for legislation next session in Olympia.

Still, it doesn't take much imagination to see that as more people get their hands on personal drones, these personal drones are going to become as big an issue as government drones. Personal drones, Honig said, "provide greater abilities to invade privacy than has traditionally been available to photographers, and we would welcome the evolution of case law on torts to apply to uses of drones. We’ll be watching this issue closely."

*Schochet did suggest I check to see whether the Seattle Parks Department has any rules about personal drone use. I haven't heard back on that one yet.