Probably won't
A couple of nice straightforward legal situations involving drones have come up. (1) A man in Kentucky shot down a drone, apparently operated by a neighbor, that was spying on his daughter. (2) Firemen in Calif are being hampered by thrill-seeking drones watching the fires.

These cases don't involve race or gender, so they have a chance of being discussed and settled sanely.

The Kentucky case is especially obvious. If the trespassing neighbor had driven his car into the yard and spied from the driver's seat, there would be no legal question at all. There shouldn't be a question about driving a drone into the yard, but there is. Why?

Drones are not new at all. They're almost as old as 'autonomous robots'. Hobbyists have been flying radio-controlled aircraft for decades. What's new is the arrogant cultural assumption of total supremacy by the NEW USERS of drones.

The RC hobbyists of earlier times were usually ham radio operators; if not licensed hams they belonged to the same culture. Uncool. Conscious of duty, careful about interference. They wouldn't have assumed the RIGHT to spy on a neighbor, and wouldn't have been SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED when the neighbor shot an intruding plane down.

The new drone users are COOOOOOL Libertarians, ie tyrannical Nietzschean killers. They firmly believe in Individual Liberty, which means "I am Übermensch. You are Negative Externalities. I am perfectly free to kill you. You are perfectly free to die." They are backed by Our Supreme Prophet Jeff Bezos, who has placed the world-conquering force of Satan.com behind the new style of drone. Satan.com does not pay taxes. Satan.com does not use laws.

Could get interesting. Probably won't. The man who tried to protect his property will undoubtedly be burned at the stake (carbon-neutrally, of course) for insulting Our Prophet.
  ¶ 1:16 AM