Most states are getting pretty aggressive about drone regulation especially where, sports, animals and monuments/stadiums are concerned. Privacy issues are largely already addressed and the drones are only a camera platform. In Florida the police are expressly prohibited from using drones without a warrant. The state legislature nipped that one in the bud early. But I want to pose 3 scenarios to help explain why the privacy issue is so front-and-center right now.
Scenario 1: I am your neighbor. I start to take video through the window. You call the police and I am told I must get off your property. I then go across the street to my house and use a telephoto lens to take video through your window. You close the curtain and go upstairs. I then get on my roof so I can do the same while you are upstairs. You will pretty much have get a restraining order from a judge to stop me. the same goes for if I have a camera on a pole that can see over your privacy fence etc, etc. As long as I am in the geographical limits of my property, about all you can do is stay inside and close your windows.
Scenario 2: After being ejected from, your property I get a drone and buzz around your house or outside you windows taking video. So long as I stay above 83 feet above ground level there was precious little you could do. Airspace rights do exists (you own the airspace up to 83' above your property)but everything above 500 feet is public domain. The airspace between 83 feet to 500 feet is still in legal limbo .
The only real grounds you have for stopping me are property rights, not the nebulous issue of privacy rights. There are two major misunderstandings about privacy rights, first is what is covered by the 4th amendment and second is to whom they apply. The 4th amendment as copied from the official archives of the United States is pasted below:
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.
Firstly, there is no right to privacy. In fact the word privacy is not even mentioned in the amendment.
Secondly, this provides limited protection against the government, not other citizens. There is no question that privacy issues complicate the drone issue but the real argument will be fought out over property rights. If the courts should rule that drones with cameras are a threat to perceived privacy rights, then the same can applied to any camera that views private property whether it is a security camera on your house or just private properties in the background of a selfie. This is a much larger can of worms than it may seem on the surface.
Remember, if the issue is about privacy then the drone (which is just a lift platform) is not the real issue, the camera is. It could just as easily be a camera on the end of a really long stick!
1 http://www.dailytech.com/Florida+Bans+Warrantless+Drone+Use+Restricts+Use+Scenarios/articl e30378.htm