There's been a lot of odd ("botched") reporting on this, so I'm hoping that this will help clear things up a bit. Why it's so difficult for reporters to actually read five pages of surprisingly clearly written text is beyond me. It took me about two hours to go through and type this up. NY Times, give me a call!
Later I'll do the same for the California bill (much less clearly written!). As always, leave me some comment or corrections if you've got them!
I've highlighted some important parts of the text concerning civilian or hobbyist use. Scan down and read those and you'll have a reasonable idea of how the law applies.
tl;dr: If you're flying over public property, private property with permission of the owner, or not intending to surveil a particular person, you're good to fly by this law.
