Slashdot Mirror


Google Testing an Airborne Camera Drone

mbone writes "The Blogoscoped site carries news that Google has purchased a German 'Microdrone' for evaluation (here is the original German version). These devices can take off, fly a mission, and land automatically using GPS. They can carry night-vision cameras or even 'see-through-walls' Far IR cameras. Of course, the maker of these drones assures us that they cannot be a 'Big Brother in the sky' because that is 'verboten.' Is it just me, or is Google entering dangerous airspace here? It seems like the ruckus from a backyard-after-dark addition to Street View could completely overshadow the legal tussles Google has already encountered with its street-level photography." Reader Jaymi clues us to another airborne effort a couple of Google employees are mounting with some help from NASA Ames: the NexusOne PhoneSat project — to determine if low-cost mobile phone components can withstand space travel.

182 comments

  1. Privacy by supertrinko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as the only pictures they take are legal ones from public places (including airspace), I don't have a problem.

    --
    If it rhymes it must be true.
    1. Re:Privacy by Jmanamj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personally, I think it makes total sense for Google to consider a fleet of small, cheap, stable camera platforms that can take detailed pictures of an area and update the Google maps service. Consider how helpful it would be if they were sent out weekly to major construction zones along rodes that cause all sorts of detours and traffic issues, so when you check a route on Google maps you wont be told to take non-existing or unaccessible roads/offramps/turns/etc.

    2. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As long as the only pictures they take are legal ones from public places (including airspace), I don't have a problem.

      I might agree if they are abiding by FAA rules. I doubt that's the intent because the images they would get at that attitude would be little more than satellites give now. Also I doubt the FAA would see the humor of these buzzing around aircraft airspace. The problem becomes how far above your house are you comfortable having surveillance drones flying? Do you see a problem with them looking in your second story bedroom window? It's disturbing that privacy itself is becoming a quaint old fashion concept.

    3. Re:Privacy by supertrinko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is only a need to update the pictures of places that are changing, like your example of a construction site. Constant picture taking of the average persons property is considered harassment.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
    4. Re:Privacy by supertrinko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem there is when it becomes "surveillance", In my own country, you must have a warrant for that. Taking pictures of the inside of a home is considered surveillance. How far above my house? Interesting question, it doesn't really matter how high I say, as camera quality is getting better all the time, it's the quality of the picture that should matter. Should they be allowed to take pictures from airspace that can see your property as well as if you were standing on the roof? I don't think so. Remember, I'm speaking of the back yard here, what you show on the front yard is practically a public display.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
    5. Re:Privacy by FlyMysticalDJ · · Score: 3, Funny

      As long as I can hit them with a crowbar or use my zero-point energy field manipulator on them, I don't see a problem...

    6. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have never heard of a warrant a warrant being needed to conduct surveillance. It is not the same as a search. In any case those laws usually only apply to the government, which Google is not.

    7. Re:Privacy by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      As long as the only pictures they take are legal ones from public places (including airspace), I don't have a problem.

      I might agree if they are abiding by FAA rules. I doubt that's the intent because the images they would get at that attitude would be little more than satellites give now. Also I doubt the FAA would see the humor of these buzzing around aircraft airspace. The problem becomes how far above your house are you comfortable having surveillance drones flying? Do you see a problem with them looking in your second story bedroom window? It's disturbing that privacy itself is becoming a quaint old fashion concept.

      In most places model airplanes have free reign under 500 feet altitude. I bet these little UAVs would spent a lot of time under that limit. Probably around 100 feet. They just have to stay clear of airports, and particularly the approach and departure trajectories.

      Don't get sucked in!

    8. Re:Privacy by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Constant picture taking of the average persons property is considered harassment.

      This happens all the time anyhow. I'm not certain that actually knowing about it and having access to those images makes it worse. You could argue that the ubiquitous public availability in itself is a bad thing, but I don't think I'm alone in saying that I trust my "neighbor" more than I trust law enforcement or shadowy military organizations.

      But then I'm not claiming that my housing development is still farmland.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    9. Re:Privacy by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      but I don't think I'm alone in saying that I trust my "neighbor" more than I trust law enforcement or shadowy military organizations.

      You don't know my neighbor.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:Privacy by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      Cool, my new arduino controlled anti-drone system will get a work-out. O.k., I designed it for crows and animals feeding on my garden, but now I'm going to for really cool surface-to-air tech.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    11. Re:Privacy by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      As long as the only pictures they take are legal ones from public places (including airspace), I don't have a problem.

      It's always heartwarming to see people conflate the unrelated concepts of "legal" and "ethical."

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    12. Re:Privacy by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Constant picture taking of the average persons property is considered harassment

      So I can sue the private non-government sat picture folks? It is a fact that they are constantly taking pictures of my property (along with billions of others).

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    13. Re:Privacy by Rei · · Score: 1

      These things sound like the Hexacopter. It uses an onboard GPS, and you can program it to follow waypoints on a schedule, as well as to operate its camera. It's a pretty nifty thing, and there's a large community working on modifications to them. For example, I know of one person who's working on a "Roomba-style" charging/docking pad that it can fly back to automatically when its battery gets low, then take off again when it gets a new charge. Excepting severe weather, a pair of them could keep 24/7 surveillance on a target with no human involvement.

      --
      "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi
    14. Re:Privacy by Zerth · · Score: 1

      A US court recently decided that attaching tracking units to vehicles required a warrant, even though tailing didn't. The limits of manpower provided sufficient limits on tailing, while tracking devices are so cheap in comparison to be almost free.

    15. Re:Privacy by nmos · · Score: 1

      IMHO Cars make a lot more sense for the sorts of places that Google already photographs. Remember they'd still have to send a car out to the general area to operate this thing. The best use for this would likely be places that aren't located along roads.

    16. Re:Privacy by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At the Avalon airshow a couple of years ago there was a little electric UAV which is pretty much an inside out version of the Hexacopter. It had two counter rotating props inside a plastic shell.

      I used to work for our state road authority and I could immediately see an application for incident management on freeways. We had CCTV cameras on every bend in the road so you could see any crash site and get fairly close with zoom (we had good lenses) but the goal is to book the correct emergency response as early as possible. A small UAV could hover around a crash site and send back CCTV images of the injured people inside vehicles. You could park the aircraft on the CCTV pylon and (as that guy was trying) leave it charging until required.

      But wind is the problem, particularly if you need a stable camera platform. Lightness gives you endurance but it reduces inertia.

    17. Re:Privacy by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      The problem is that UAVs are not currently allowed to operate in civilian airspace. Once that blockage is lifted, Katie bar the door.

    18. Re:Privacy by ColoradoAuthor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FAA rules require that "hobbyist" UAVs be operated under strict visual line of sight (see, for example, FAA AIR-160, UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01). And as I understand it, commercial UAVs have much stricter rules, and currently aren't allowed to fly over major roads or populated areas.

      To illustrate how daunting the regulatory environment is, a multimillion-dollar research project on UAVs for tornado research (part of Vortex 2) has "learning to interact with the FAA" at the top of its research agenda.

      Given that, I don't grok the value of the GPS-guided flight, unless they're planning to use them only outside the US or to sell them to the military.

    19. Re:Privacy by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that, I don't grok the value of the GPS-guided flight, unless they're planning to use them only outside the US or to sell them to the military.

      Outside the US is a big place, and quite a good market.

    20. Re:Privacy by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      It is a fact that they are constantly taking pictures of my property (along with billions of others).

      It's not a "fact" until we establish the law's definition of "constantly". Once a week? Monthly? Biannually? Annually? The imagery near my house was very out of date until recently (now it's only out of date by several months). The Street View is even older.

    21. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can call it a zero-point energy field manipulator if you want

    22. Re:Privacy by SirRedTooth · · Score: 1

      As long as they dont fly one into my home and take pictures of my stash im cool.

    23. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if they're IR equipped it will show up anyone doing a little hot-lamp based agriculture - there are all kinds of implications to that, does it give the police just cause to come search your property, does it make you a target to criminal gangs, etc...

    24. Re:Privacy by delvsional · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but I did read an article somewhere (here?) that local governments are using google earth to find people with unpermitted pools

      --
      Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
    25. Re:Privacy by dickdono · · Score: 1

      There is only a need to update the pictures of places that are changing, like your example of a construction site.....

      How are they going to know which places are changing if they don't take pictures for comparison?

    26. Re:Privacy by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      The problem there is when it becomes "surveillance", In my own country, you must have a warrant for that.

      I fear this might be one of those "gray" areas -- the police need a warrant, but a private company flying a drone may not.

      Because they simply say it's not surveillance, and that they're doing research. I worry it might be like those companies that data mine -- it would be illegal for the government to do it, but if a private company does it and then the government agency just buys the data ... all of a sudden it's perfectly legal.

      I'm just not sure that Google technically needs warrants in this case. Might be a situation where technology gets out in front of law and there's no real rules.

      I do, however, agree that this is getting into an area where I'm not so sure they should be allowed to do this.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    27. Re:Privacy by supertrinko · · Score: 1

      Ask the local council, I don't know what the equivalent is in america, but to do any sort of construction, you must clear it through them. Google can find out from them.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
    28. Re:Privacy by supertrinko · · Score: 1

      The cameras looking into your house is where it goes far over the line. Which was what I was speaking of. Anything outside is viewable from a public area.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
    29. Re:Privacy by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      The imagery near my house was very out of date until recently

      The age of the pics on Google have *NOTHING* to do with the private sat companies that can and do take pictures of your area at least once a week or more. Google doesn't pay for the most up-to-date pics, that doesn't mean they do not exist. *IF* I wanted to pay several thousend $ I could buy *VERY* up-to-date pics of YOUR property.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  2. Can... by Cap'nPedro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They can carry spy-o-scopes, but that doesn't mean they will.

    In fact, they aren't even mentioned in either linked article as far as I can see.

    1. Re:Can... by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They can carry spy-o-scopes, but that doesn't mean they will.

      Yes, because everyone knows that Google would never spy on anyone.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:Can... by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly! They've got this "do-no-evil" clause that protects us from them!

    3. Re:Can... by rhook · · Score: 3, Interesting
    4. Re:Can... by bonch · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wish the constant benefit of the doubt given to Google by many Slashdot readers would end. CEO Eric Schmidt came out and said that only people who have something to hide care about privacy. They "accidentally" scanned and archived WiFi network data. It's an ethical issue, if not a legal one, and it never hurts to be diligent when a single entity has so much power and gathers data on millions, if not billions, of people.

  3. You'd better watch out by qpawn · · Score: 3, Funny

    It sees you when you're sleeping, it knows when you're awake, it knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.

    1. Re:You'd better watch out by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      It sees you when you're sleeping, it knows when you're awake, it knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.

      So you're saying that Santa Claus is real? That Google is Santa Claus?

      This could get complicated.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:You'd better watch out by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      That Google is Santa Claus?

      Well, both Google and Santa Claus give out all kinds of free goodies, so it's possible. Besides, Santa's been in beta for a while now.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  4. Pull! by spywhere · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I see it above my street, I'll put up a cloud of birdshot...

    1. Re:Pull! by General+Wesc · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      People who abuse their right to guns are the reason some think we shouldn't have said right.

    2. Re:Pull! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Then repeal the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, or stfu.

    3. Re:Pull! by adamdoyle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't have the mental capacity to recognize a joke then you don't have the capacity to form educated opinions on legal issues.

    4. Re:Pull! by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Smile when you do it. They'll have a high res mug shot for the police and your exact GPS location. :)

    5. Re:Pull! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't a joke, many people feel this way and even act on such impulses. But most of them don't live in urban neighborhoods.

    6. Re:Pull! by FeepingCreature · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's called Poe's Law. Look it up.

    7. Re:Pull! by hitmark · · Score: 1

      or perhaps a home made SAM? (microcontroller, ir sensor, model rocket).

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    8. Re:Pull! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot, for FSMs sake!

      HERF the fucker instead using a hidden antenna.

      No birdshot, no frothing anti-freedom (even the Daily Kos "gets" the Second Amendment), anti-gun screeching triggered by the suggestion of birdshot,

      and the HERFed device satisfyingly quits working.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:Pull! by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the rash shooting down of surveillance drones is at the very heart of the anti-gun movement. It is similar to the "global warming"/"green" anti-car movement that began when Al Gore's beloved kitten was run over by an SUV.

    10. Re:Pull! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty easy, really. Look at the SA-7 and try to recreate the spinning reticle is hard. However, I suspect that a Wiimote is a good start, if the micro-UAV has an adequately hot spot.

    11. Re:Pull! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      or perhaps a home made SAM? (microcontroller, ir sensor, model rocket).

      The beauty of the Internet is that anything anybody just thought of... has been done last week

    12. Re:Pull! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I reckon you could do it cheaper and more precisely by using a gyroscope that pivots underneath with control rods on top, that way there's no lag from when the rocket tilts to the fins correction. Also the gyroscope could just be a plain flywheel, no need for any electronics whatsoever. The "warhead" could be made of an ammonium nitrate oxidizer and nitromethane fuel, with ball-bearings for shrapnel.

    13. Re:Pull! by tareko · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's called Poe's Law. Look it up.

      For those who don't want to look it up, here's from wikipedia: Poe's law (poetry) — There is a maximum desirable length for poems: "The unit of poetry must be fixed by the reader's capacity of attention, and ... the limits of a poem must accord with the limits of a single movement of intellectual apprehension and emotional exaltation," named for Edgar Allan Poe.[3][4] See "The Philosophy of Composition". tarek : )

    14. Re:Pull! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try the other one:

      Poe's law (religious fundamentalism) — "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."[5] named after Nathan Poe who formulated it on christianforums.com in 2005.[6] Although it originally referred to creationism, the scope later widened to religious fundamentalism.[7]

      or the one from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

      Poe's Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism.

    15. Re:Pull! by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      What's the point having a gun if you're not gonna use it? Better sell it and get some beers instead!

      --
      This is blinging
    16. Re:Pull! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im not sure how poetry appreciation is relevant to recognising a joke...

      Poe's law — There is a maximum desirable length for poems: "The unit of poetry must be fixed by the reader's capacity of attention, and ... the limits of a poem must accord with the limits of a single movement of intellectual apprehension and emotional exaltation," named for Edgar Allan Poe.[3][4] See "The Philosophy of Composition".

    17. Re:Pull! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to recognize a joke, it has to be funny. The GP's "joke" is indistinguishable from the normal thoughts of your typical inbred redneck. If you don't have the mental capacity to make a joke, then you deserve whatever abuse results when you make the attempt.

    18. Re:Pull! by Gaffod · · Score: 1

      Actually, isn't this the very reason why the right to own guns was conceived in the first place? The government is obviously too corrupt to effectively prevent ubiquitous surveillance, and even gleefully cooperates with the private sector to jointly effect it. Guns are a perfectly reasonably last-resort.

  5. Free microdrone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    score!

  6. heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pull the trigger and it's garbage.

    1. Re:heh by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pull the trigger and it's garbage.

      Sounds like an idea for a website, send in your photos of your downed Google drones, with you standing there holding it up like a 10 point buck. Googlefail.com or some such.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There aren't very many people with guns here in Germany. :P

    3. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Current quote of the day at the bottom of the page: "Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue

    4. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pull the trigger and it's garbage.

      Sounds like an idea for a website, send in your photos of your downed Google drones, with you standing there holding it up like a 10 point buck. Googlefail.com or some such.

      fuck that is funny!

    5. Re:heh by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Not really, Germany has quite high number of guns per capita - which, while not translating directly to "percentage of population" (for example: any self-respecting hunter will have minimum two after all), does mean there's quite enough people with guns. Plus since, IIRC, large portion of them are indeed those with hunting licenses - there will be enough guns of most appropriate type.

      Still, I wouldn't expect such sillinesss taking place...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:heh by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I bet they will be a bit high for shooting at, but would be a good test for that home built heat seeking missile project.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  7. Seems like more of what they do already by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't see how these would be any different than their existing aerial photography. All of the high resolution stuff they have is from planes with cameras at a few thousand feet. I'm guessing they want to integrate this into their existing street view runs. As the van drives around, they launch one or more of these up to refresh their overhead images. After 45 minutes or so, they run low on battery, and fly back to the van for replacement and download. You make the route planning automated, the drivers spend a couple minutes every hour doing maintenance, and now everything Google uses is owned by them rather than licensed from some 3rd party.

    1. Re:Seems like more of what they do already by garcia · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't see how these would be any different than their existing aerial photography. All of the high resolution stuff they have is from planes with cameras at a few thousand feet.

      Their's, not their competitions' who use aerial photographs from about 100m to do "Bird's Eye View". It's much better than Google's and I find myself using Bing's maps more and more. Perhaps this is so that they can do the same sort of thing w/o having to outfit a Cessna.

    2. Re:Seems like more of what they do already by darthlurker · · Score: 1

      Being unmanned is one big difference. Local police want aerial drones too. But FAA has been saying no.

    3. Re:Seems like more of what they do already by paul248 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Google already has a 45-degree bird's eye view in some areas. Switch to satellite view and zoom into their Mountain View headquarters, for example.

    4. Re:Seems like more of what they do already by sznupi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, nice quality (but not "too good" - such drones can't carry really good photographic gear, for starters) aerial photos, frequently updated, lower cost, lesser risk than sending small airplanes for similar shots & in the same places & as frequently; perhaps also a nice way to obtain textures for Google Earth - what's not to like?

      Not everything needs to be about 1984; especially since such photos were already being made. Now they can show more places, and be more current, something which people certainly want.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:Seems like more of what they do already by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't wait until the day Americans wake up and decide not to be manipulated by outrage anymore. We can face our problems calmly and rationally and actually get them fixed, instead of getting outraged and emotional and doing nothing but giving ad revenue to the people who are trying to manipulate us.

      People will get tired of outrage eventually, right?

      --
      Qxe4
    6. Re:Seems like more of what they do already by bami · · Score: 1

      That's a whole load of solar panels. I also spot a sort-of chessboard next to the entrance and a basketball court on the parking lot, but the whole place looks pretty deserted, with only a few people walking around and the parking lot is pretty empty.

      I love this view, it's like simcity, but real!

    7. Re:Seems like more of what they do already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being that it's hard to figure out where it's available it's useless.

    8. Re:Seems like more of what they do already by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      Not everything needs to be about 1984; especially since such photos were already being made. Now they can show more places, and be more current, something which people certainly want.

      Now all they need is to capture more hot chicks sunbathing naked in their private back yards, and it's a win for everyone.

      More or less.

      Well, except for hot chicks who want privacy behind tall fences while roaming around naked outdoors anyway, but hey, who expects privacy behind a tall fence in this day and age.

    9. Re:Seems like more of what they do already by nigelo · · Score: 1

      I think the majority of right-thinking people are sick and tired of being told that the majority of right-thinking people are sick and tired.

      I certainly am not. And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.

      --
      *Still* negative function...
  8. Brought to you by... by alphatel · · Score: 1

    Please amend "Do No Evil" to read "You'd better 'Do No Evil' or we'll get you!"

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  9. Opt-Out file? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can't you just place a robots.txt file on your property to tell the GoogleDrone not to index it?

    1. Re:Opt-Out file? by RobertLTux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yes in fact you can buy the required sign from these folks http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=1&section=products

      (please of course check your local regs before purchasing)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    2. Re:Opt-Out file? by Suki+I · · Score: 1

      Use IR reflective paint and become invisible!

    3. Re:Opt-Out file? by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does the law in your area prevent you from painting your rooftop with a shocking picture of your choice?

    4. Re:Opt-Out file? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      hmm, maybe arrange your root files using black and white tiles so that it shows a QR code for "private".

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:Opt-Out file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might work... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation

    6. Re:Opt-Out file? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The law doesn't, but your local covenants might.

      That said, I now feel an urge to paint my roof to make my house appear to be bombed-out rubble, or perhaps a pit to hell.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  10. Sinisterish by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 1

    One? I expect very high resolution aerial views of the Googleplex office compound then.

  11. Can != will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, the drones can carry long wavelength cameras to see through walls. They could also carry nuclear weapons. Irrational paranoia aside, Google is probably just trying to compete with Bing's Birds-Eye map capabilities.

    1. Re:Can != will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, but that's Microsoft. Google doesn't have a proven privacy record.

    2. Re:Can != will by Suki+I · · Score: 1

      Yes, the drones can carry long wavelength cameras to see through walls. They could also carry nuclear weapons. Irrational paranoia aside, Google is probably just trying to compete with Bing's Birds-Eye map capabilities.

      Irrational paranoia? Who have you been talking to!

    3. Re:Can != will by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      You're telling me they could also carry nuclear weapons?! Run for your life!

    4. Re:Can != will by Raenex · · Score: 1

      They could also carry nuclear weapons.

      Rubbish. They carry giant magnifying glasses so they can burn you like ants.

  12. sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems Google wont stop until we all live in transparent houses and
    wear big name tags...

    1. Re:sigh by FlyMysticalDJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought that was facebook...

    2. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's transparent farms.

  13. My plan is foolproof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to launch my iPhone into orbit as a satellite. At the appropriate moment, when the google spy drone is overhead, my phone will descend from the heavens and destroy it.

    1. Re:My plan is foolproof by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      'Pods from God...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  14. Skynet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skynet!

  15. Probably cheaper... by interfecio · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...more efficient, and faster to get up to date imagery for maps than to wait and pay for satellite imagery. Military has these planes that fly by themselves to take pictures to update maps. This looks like it's just the civilian sector following lead. I can only imagine that aligning and presenting imagery data from an aircraft is a lot easier and requires less compute/man hours than satellite imagery. Especially if the need is only for new imagery of a small area.

    1. Re:Probably cheaper... by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

      actually a fair amount of the imagery comes from aircraft already - it would be hard to believe that the soda straw view provided by this little drone could be cost effective - the coverage rate is so low you'd need thousands of them to get the equivalent coverage of an aircraft

    2. Re:Probably cheaper... by cheater512 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Those microdrones can fly at ridiculous heights.

      For all intents and purposes they are a plane. Just slower, more stable and easier to set up and use.

    3. Re:Probably cheaper... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I can only imagine that aligning and presenting imagery data from an aircraft is a lot easier and requires less compute/man hours than satellite imagery.

      Since they're exactly the same job - no, I see no reason why there should be any significant difference in the work involved.
       

      Especially if the need is only for new imagery of a small area.

      True of *one* small area. Multiply that by the (tens of?) thousands of changes annually in the US alone...

    4. Re:Probably cheaper... by multi+io · · Score: 1

      They must be much less fuel/energy efficient than a real (RC) plane though. These things would have to use their engines all the time just to stay aloft, while an RC plane can essentially glide and use the engines mostly for forward propulsion. A plane can't stop or fly very slowly, so it would be harder to obtain very detailed photographs, but it could probably cover five times the area with the same amount of energy.

    5. Re:Probably cheaper... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Granted, but the requirement for a runway makes city use tricky.

      Also a plane big enough to carry a good quality camera with enough battery power for a decent run would be quite dangerous in suburbia in a crash. These drones however would just drop straight down if there was a problem with minimal chance of hitting anyone.

    6. Re:Probably cheaper... by delinear · · Score: 1

      Not sure about the minimal chance of hitting anyone part given that they're likely to be flying over the most populated areas - but maybe some kind of parachute that auto-deploys when the engine dies would minimise danger?

  16. I'd happily let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...take a picture of my exposed body if it meant Google Maps wasn't 8 YEAR BEHIND.

    Damn it so much crap has changed in and around where i live.
    One of the oldest primary schools knocked down. (in that area)
    A whole chunk of new housing, hotels, car showrooms around the main roundabout entrance to the town, widened roads at there as well.
    A whole shopping centre area just a few minutes North of that. (town is West)
    Main town area has been all updated with new walkways and roads
    That's just the biggest things.

    1. Re:I'd happily let them... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I know exactly what you mean. There are two places I used to live that have drastically views from street view to satellite view.

          At one place, the satellite view is years old. It's not a very interesting place to look though.

          Then there's this one (West corner of Doran and Isabel). The satellite view is from within the last year. The street view is from at least 2 years ago, but probably longer.

          I lived there several years ago. I stopped by a couple years ago, and the house had been torn down, and they had just began construction on condos.

          The really annoying part was, that could have been a beautiful house. It was beautiful inside. The house was built in 1924, and had a notable history. The owner bought it and the house next door. We were renting it while he secured the necessary permits to build the condos. We were there for a year. Someone else moved in after us, and sometime after that it was gone. Most of the historical homes in that area were torn down, because the property was worth more with condos on it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  17. There is a hobby group for UAVs by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In fact, there are several. Aside from an RC plane of some sort, all you need is about $100 in parts and some electronics know-how to build your own (basic) UAV.

    Of course, it won't be as sophisticated as a multi-million dollar micro-UAV or one of the Air Force's Predator drones, but medium range (several miles) surveillance, automated take-offs and landings, GPS waypoint tracking, infrared cameras, etc. are not outside the realm of the hobbyist.

    Check out http://www.diydrones.com/ to see what I mean.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    1. Re:There is a hobby group for UAVs by hkz · · Score: 2, Informative

      In fact, some Dutch OpenStreetMap people are working on their own UAV, also with mapping in mind:

      http://blog.opengeo.nl/

    2. Re:There is a hobby group for UAVs by deapbluesea · · Score: 3, Informative

      Aside from an RC plane of some sort, all you need is about $100 in parts and some electronics know-how to build your own (basic) UAV.

      While the FAA has recognized that most of these toy UAVs still qualify as RC aircraft (as long as they stay below 400 and fly within line of sight), it is illegal in the United States for a corporation or government entity to purchase or build a UAV for commercial or public use without completing an airworthiness certificate and obtaining a Certificate of Authorization from the FAA.

      Per the FAA:

      Currently, civilian companies may not operate a UAS as part of a business without obtaining a Special Airworthiness Certificate - Experimental Category (SAC-EC). However, this SAC-EC is very limited in scope of operational use. Contact FAA for details or see FAA Order 8130.34.

      So don't expect Google to be flying this over populated areas for quite a long time. Current estimates are about 2030 or later before UAVs are fully integrated in the national airspace, and they very likely will seldom be allowed over densely populated areas without some major public good justification

      --
      Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
    3. Re:There is a hobby group for UAVs by blhack · · Score: 1

      Predators do not have automatic takeoff and landing capabilities.

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    4. Re:There is a hobby group for UAVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, there are several. Aside from an RC plane of some sort, all you need is about $100 in parts and some electronics know-how to build your own (basic) UAV.

      What I am really looking for is a hobby anti aircraft missile defense system for backyard enthusiasts. Know where I can get that ?

  18. Google Roof View by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    No privacy issues here!

    It's useful because you can, ah, make sure your roof is still in good shape and doesn't need shingles?

    Yeah.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Google Roof View by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Imagine a neighborhood where all the houses are the same size and all the roads are configured in a grid. Using different colors of shingles, you could make bitmap images visible from the sky.

  19. Google's turning into Bigipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those who missed it, Bigipedia is a stream of consciousness Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy-esque spin through the internet that was on BBC Radio 4 last year. Google is increasingly resembling that which was once satire.

  20. News organizations, danger zones by RichMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am really surprised news organizations have not started using these to cover situations.

    Live from Irag/Afghanistan/Mogadishu/Pakistan ...

    1. Re:News organizations, danger zones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cost, for one - news organizations are having a pretty rough go of it these days.

      Plus, ideologues would attack their use by either the liberal, or conservative media, or quite possibly both simultaneously.

    2. Re:News organizations, danger zones by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It would just give both the military and any terrorists more reason to mistrust and dislike the media.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  21. Bing Bird's Eye by flabbergast · · Score: 1

    I could see this as an alternative to Bing Bird's Eye photos. Yes, there are privacy issues. virtualglobetrotting.com has tracked down high profile homes and viewing them in Bing Bird's Eye is surreal.

  22. Is it just me . . . ? by Suki+I · · Score: 1

    "Is it just me, or is Google entering dangerous airspace here?" Yes, it is just you. Move along. Nothing to see here.

  23. Google Testing an Airborne Camera Drone by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · · Score: 1

    That's a coincidence! I happen to be testing homemade Patriots in my backyard.

    1. Re:Google Testing an Airborne Camera Drone by mjwx · · Score: 1

      That's a coincidence! I happen to be testing homemade Patriots in my backyard.

      How unsporting of you good sir,

      Build your own drone and send it up there to engage in manly drone to drone combat.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  24. two words. by Dee+Ann_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They Live.

  25. future-proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just find the guy with QED ring!

  26. boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read this "Google has already encountered with its street-level photography." but misread photography and pornography. Upon realizing my mistake I lost interest.

  27. Perspective by neoshroom · · Score: 1
    1. Think about when only the government had high resolution satilites.
    2. Then think about the services you gained access to when non-government groups got access to the same technology.
    3. Now think of the abuses of power and privacy that the government has used their satellites for over the years.
    4. Now think about the abuses of power and privacy that non-government groups committed who later got access to the same technology.
    5. It seems, to me at least, that the services we received were far greater and the abuses far less from non-government groups.
    6. I suspect the situation with unmanned automated vehicles will be similar.

    And of course there will be situations where government uses private services to snoop on your private property, which are sort of in the middle.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:Perspective by supertrinko · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that some people don't have the same government as yourself, therefore I cannot comment on what your government has/hasn't done with this technology.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
  28. The future by kahizonaki · · Score: 1

    Welcome to Google! "We know more about you than your own mother"
    Search terms: | What is my girlfriend doing right now? |
    ...
    ...
    Query returned: 2 results (3.793932 seconds for observation drones to move into position)
    Result#1: Drone39103 (IR Camera, MMwavelength, NV Camera, Stereo camera) in position over 1722 Walnut St., Stalintown IN, residence of Ms. Wendy Smith, SSN 232-28-8821, google person number 399925800-1F
    Result#2: Drone00192 (NV Camera, BFLaser) in position over 1722 Walnut St., Stalintown IN, residence of Ms. Wendy Smith, SSN 232-28-8821, google person number 399925800-1F
    PS friendly message from your friendly google monitor: "ur gurlfrend is hawt lol! XOXO" END OF TRANSMISSION

    SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENT: Vaporize your enemies! New, with google BigBrother! All drones are being outfitted with...

  29. If this was the government it'd be a flame war... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    If this was the CIA, DoD, a major law enforcement agency, or hell a small one, this wouldn't even be up for debate. It would be Bad.

    If it were Microsoft, HP, Halliburton or Blackwater/Xe, it would be Terrible.

    If this was a Bush administration plan, it would be the End Times for Civil Liberties.

    Google should not get the benefit of the doubt about it's intentions and uses for surveillance drones, it should be raked over the coals and everyone and their cousin should be hitting up the regulatory agencies managing the permits and licences of these aircraft.

  30. Oh boy! by qoa · · Score: 1

    I cannot wait to hear what Alex Jones has to say about this. He already thinks Google and the NSA are the same thing. (his words). He's going to have a coronary.

    --
    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
  31. Perspective Relativity by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    Don't forget that some people don't have the same government as yourself, therefore I cannot comment on what your government has/hasn't done with this technology.

    Mind enlightening us on your particular government's use/non-use of UAV's?

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:Perspective Relativity by supertrinko · · Score: 1

      I don't know that my government owns any UAV's, however we have laws that require warrents for government officials/police etc.. to perform surveillance on people. (New Zealand Government that is) However the average person is allowed to record any conversation they are a part of, record anything/anyone they see, and follow anyone to see where they go and what they do. However spying on someone in their home goes over the line, and will not hold up in court.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
  32. I can't help but think... by AC-x · · Score: 1

    I can't help but think they only got this just so they would have a cool toy to play with at their Mountain View campus

  33. For the Fear Mongers who are too lazy to RTA by aitikin · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This is the first article linked, emphasis mine:

    German publication Wirtschaftswoche (“Economy Week”) says that German manufacturer Microdrones has delivered a cam-equipped flying mini drone to Google. Microdrones boss Mr. Juerss is quoted as saying “We have good chances for a long term business relationship with Google” (is he just overly optimistic? Google wasn’t available for comment to the magazine). According to him the drones “are superbly suited to deliver more up-to-date recordings for mapping service Google Earth.” Another potential use mentioned by Juerss is inspecting wind farms.

    If Google continues to exist I guess it’s only natural they continue to expand their tools (same could be said for the world at large), lest laws stop them. For the time being we may want our faces and living rooms blurred, but who knows where we’re headed. Will there be a day where everyone’s non-privacy is our best privacy protection (like a camouflage pattern), or will we be scared to do anything unusual, creative and progressive with so much supervision (like 1984)?

    In the original German article, they mention how some of the drones they've sold have been equipped with IR and thermal imaging technologies, and give you a teaser that you can come back on Monday to read about the companies that already use the technologies.

    Sounds to me like Google is merely trying to vastly improve Google Maps and Google Earth's satellite views with cheap yet efficient technologies, and Wirtschaftswoche is just trying to sell magazines. Of course, who am I to be a naysayer of the tinfoil hat wearing among us...

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  34. If you want to find out how evil Google is... by dollarwizard · · Score: 1
    ...just ask any small business that has been banned from advertising on Google's Adwords network. I'm not going to plug my own business here, but I run a software company and was forced to lay off three people because Google decided my site violated their vague "Terms & Conditions." (They did not tell me what my supposed violations were.)

    However, I will give you two examples of two other small businesses that were banned from Adwords. The first is this one, a small local pest-control company Reno. If anyone can find anything objectionable about that site, definitely let me know! Read their story here. (Scroll down to the 6th reply.)

    Here's another company banned from Adwords, in this case a company in LA that has helped non-profits obtain grants for the past 35 years. You can read their story here.

    1. Re:If you want to find out how evil Google is... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The first is this one, a small local pest-control company Reno. If anyone can find anything objectionable about that site, definitely let me know!

      I'm guess because Google's tools automatically ban companies called "Sier Rapist". I'm guessing that they probably ban all professional rapists. So, when you graduate with a masters in psychoanalysis and decide to open a practice as a therapist, you probably don't want to put that you are an ANALRAPIST on your business cards.

  35. remote launchable surface to google interceptor by cellurl · · Score: 1

    Its time.
    Lets begin an effort to thwart airborne eavesdropping.

    I propose a home based monitoring system followed by a seeking-intercept-rocket to stop these drones.

    Instructable, please join in.

  36. Backyard party by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you don't have a problem with them taking a picture of your backyard party and posting it if you have a privacy fence so its not visible from the street?

    I have a problem with it, and yes i realize its 'air space' but they are crossing a moral line if they start doing that.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Backyard party by supertrinko · · Score: 1

      It's not so private if you're willing to hold that party in a place you know people may be able to see it.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
    2. Re:Backyard party by BungaDunga · · Score: 1

      Too late.

      http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=r1c4qr7k5y8t&scene=38572790&lvl=2&sty=b

      Bing maps has had aerial imagery for forever. The area around my house is higher res than this link, actually (down to a swingset).

    3. Re:Backyard party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't have a problem with them taking a picture of your backyard party and posting it if you have a privacy fence so its not visible from the street?

      Of course. But all the aerial pictures they have been taking for the past few years are averaged over multiple passes,to filter out exactly that sort of thing.
      Why would you assume they would suddenly do any different?

  37. Can it dodge a slingshot-propelled rock? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If not, I'll be picking up the pieces of one of these drones real soon now. If Google wants it back they are welcome to come and get it.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Can it dodge a slingshot-propelled rock? by dmrobbin · · Score: 0

      I have a shotgun and love to target prctice

  38. Have they fit it with a WiFi logger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that's what really put Street View "on the map" so to speak.

  39. New term: war piloting. by casings · · Score: 1

    You know Google is going to "accidentally" forget to turn off their wifi sniffers on these guys too.

  40. Tool by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    You can crack open a clam with a rock. Or you can crack open another persons skull.
    You can warm yourself and cook meals with fire. Or you can torch someones house down.
    You can shoot food for your family with a gun. Or you can shoot a family.

    Just because the tools become more advanced does not change the moral dilemma that has faced mankind with the proper use of all tools. They can be used for good, or evil.

    The tool itself is just a tool. This article is just hype for the sake of hype.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:Tool by delinear · · Score: 1

      The argument that a tool is just a tool only works if you know nothing about the person wielding it. A gun is just a gun becomes a different argument if said gun is being held by someone we know is a convicted killer. Now Google's modus operandi is to use sat and street-level imagery to build up services like Google maps, so we can reasonably expect they are investigating the merit of using drones to add to that map data. Even without IR and night vision, that's enough to cause some people privacy concerns and that alone is worthy of further discussion. Of course the article makes the possibilities sound worse because that's how you sell clicks on the internet these days, but that doesn't mean the most likely purpose of the tool isn't also worth at least talking about.

  41. CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much of Google does IN-Q-TEL own?

    It's the intelligence-industrial complex. NSA and CIA have been privatising their operations. Drawing important skills from the private sector aside, it has allowed them to (1) tap into a LOT of information about its citizens; and (2) side-step some laws forbidding certain operations (like monitoring citizens).

    A tidy little arrangement.

  42. We need about 100k Google Drones on the Border by HockeyGuy · · Score: 1

    The need to put a bunch of these things on our border to catch illegal aliens.

    Carve a 1 mile wide no mans land strip along the border manage it by DOD and anyone entering a limited Access DOD Area is considered a Terrorist....

    THATS RIGHT
    THEY ARE KILLING MORE PEOPLE WITH HEROIN FROM AFGHANISTAN THEN THEY DID ON 911
    It needs to stop

  43. 2001 attack by stimpleton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was doing papers at university in Satelite imagery in 2001 at time of the trade Towers attack. Our dept had its own image server and direct image purchase ability to many institutions including the satelite owners. We could buy images like you can buy stock photography images of image stock websites.

    The Kronos satellite(50cm greyscale resolution, 100cm truecolor) was turned to snap images of the twin towers and we had those images within some 35 minutes of the 9/11 attacks.

    The point I make is, when there is the capability, and when the desire is there, pretty much anything is achievable. Someone at Kronos Satellite took it upon themselves to abandon the current photography job and turn the satellite to the twin towers.

    Was that person authorised? I have always wondered.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    1. Re:2001 attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If they weren't authorized, I am sure it was overlooked. Whoever made the decision to image the WTC location, made the right decision.

  44. Re:Pull! - Right to defend my rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We have the right to bear arms, in part, to defend our rights. Bringing down a privacy-invading drone with a dose of bird shot sounds perfectly within the constitution to me.

  45. Prior Art by alex4point0 · · Score: 0

    BIT plane flew into the 'glittering heart of Silicon Valley' in the late 90s... through the protected airspace over some pretty big IT companies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIT_plane

    --
    By the time you finish reading this sentence will end.
  46. Zappers by cbciv · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of a reference in a Shadow Run novel to people who ran around zapping any drones that they saw with the equivalent of a supercharged taser. This was in the context of a world where many such drones were seen daily, used by law enforcement, private companies, etc. If such usage becomes common in reality, might a section of the tin-foil hat crowd or "American Militia" movement behave similarly?

  47. Slightly Off Topic by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    This Slashdot post connected a few dots for me. I was reading about Wikileaks this weekend and now this post reminds me of another post a year or so back about how Google is censoring it's Google-maps for various Governments.

    It occurs to me now that censoring Google-maps is a bad idea for governments unless your only trying to block attempts by poor amateur crackpot terrorists. If you have the money you could no doubt get a hold of an uncensored world photo database and then all you would need to do is compare them with Google-maps and you would know all the sensitive areas in the world. Ironically only camouflaged and non censored areas can be top secret and not just sensitive.

    Other random correlations. Holographic research has no doubt been getting a lot of funding recently. And with private industry poised to take over the space industry it's no wonder my Government wants to influence who has launch capabilities and what gets into space. And totally random - the best way to take a satellite out of commission would be to wrap it in a blanket thereby avoiding space junk; kind of like the earlier post about deobiting satellites.

  48. Has anybody said it yet? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

    OK, I'm thinking these things will qualify as "smart-skeet" and will be welcomed with open arms wherever rifle racks are standard equipment...

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  49. SKYNET by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Alive and well, just a few years late.

  50. Anti-Air by spyder-implee · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to try and shoot one of these down with my own drone aircraft.

    --
    Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    1. Re:Anti-Air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enter AirSoft ZSU-23-4 Shilka...

  51. Really? by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

    They can carry night-vision cameras or even 'see-through-walls' Far IR cameras.

    Seriously? If we're gonna talk about equipment that hypothetically *could* be attached to the drone, you might as well say "They could be equipped with toxic case, small bombs, and laser guns. They could launch GPS-guided sharks at unsuspecting people in swimming pools below. The sharks could be injected with adrenaline and be dunked in human blood just prior to being launched."

    They could do all that, or they could just attach a damn camera to it and take some damn photographs for Google Earth.

    1. Re:Really? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, they are delivered to google with infrared and optical cameras.
      The second part is of course pure conjecture and not very realistic, but the first is already realized.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Really? by worip · · Score: 1

      I agree about the hypothethical part, altough it is more like complete fiction. Now even Slashdot is perpetuating the myth that Far IR cameras can see through walls... Far IR cameras can't even see through normal glass, never mind concrete or brick walls. Far IR radiation is essentially heat, so to see through say a brick wall, you would have to detect the body heat of a person (or another source) through the bricks. The person's (or other source's) body heat would have been dispersed so evenly through the wall that distinguisinh it from the wall itself will be impossible.

      --
      A picture is worth exactly 1024 words.
    3. Re:Really? by delinear · · Score: 1

      And could the sharks have fricken lasers on their heads?

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could even call it science fiction.

  52. Re:If this was the government it'd be a flame war. by mgblst · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this was the CIA, DoD, a major law enforcement agency, or hell a small one, this wouldn't even be up for debate. It would be Bad.

    The are already doing this.

    If it were Microsoft, HP, Halliburton or Blackwater/Xe, it would be Terrible.

    You know why? These companies have already proven themselves to do bad stuff, in the name of getting more money. Google have not done that yet.

    It is like find a serial killer at the door, or a girl scout selling cookies. If we are to react as you would, you would treat them both exactly the same. There is a reason you listed those particular companies, as opposed to say Ben and Jerries, Dupont and Kmart.

  53. No such thing as a "positive right" to privacy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but it isn't Mommy Government's job to cover your butt-crack.

    If you want privacy in a high-tech world, you're gonna have to pay for it, and luckily there's a high-tech solution for that as well. You want to go outside and not be seen - build a one-way-tinted photovoltaic dome around your house / backyard! That will also help keep out rain, snow, pollution, pollen, harmful UV rays, and intruders, as well as insulate you to reduce heating / cooling bills, generate electricity, etc.

    Signed: Alex Libman's sockpuppet.

    1. Re:No such thing as a "positive right" to privacy! by Arimus · · Score: 1

      Easier way (if you are lucky enough to live where you can still posses a firearm): lock and load, find drone and dispatch drone to the great aerodrome in the sky.

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    2. Re:No such thing as a "positive right" to privacy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrestrial Property Rights do not extend down to the center of the earth nor up into the universe indefinitely. Flying at a sufficiently high altitude above you does not constitute trespassing nor aggression of any kind. Thus shooting down someone else's drone w/o permission would and should be a crime.

      You do not own what is outside your property, including the eyeballs of others. Like I said, if you want privacy, you'll have to pay for it.

  54. webbigest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  55. We can legislate to make it legal dopey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know you're a fool and don't deserve a reply but it is frustrating even to be aware that someone as daft as you could exist.

    Things are legal only so long as there is no law to make them illegal. That's an important point. Try to get your limited brain around the concept.

    Anything can be made illegal.

    If technology is in place, it makes it all the more easy to enact legislation which would have been unthinkable before it was implemented.

  56. Someone bought a product somewhere by Asmodaie · · Score: 1

    How is this news?

  57. I just wonder... by f3rret · · Score: 1

    How long it will take for someone to hack the control system used by these drones once (If?) they go live.

    --
    Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  58. SkyNet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SkyNet apparently is the future name of this company.

  59. Re:If this was the government it'd be a flame war. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    There are no CIA, DoD or law enforcement agencies with drones operating in public areas of the United States imaging civilians.

    There are drones over the US borders, but that's not the same as having small drones in urban areas.

    As for Google not doing bad stuff for money, exactly how has Google been "better" than Microsoft or HP? This is a company whose CEO says time after time that Google is an enemy to privacy .

  60. Unintended Consequences by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Letting such technology lose may have consequences both good and bad that we can not hope to predict. For example suppose an eye in the sky was able to catch all kinds of thieves and burglars at work and then the public finds out that we do not have the money to put people in prison. That could cause real chaos as more and more people figured that the law lacked the financial capacity to punish them.

  61. Bing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about Bing's bird eye view? I always thought they got those images using something like this.

  62. more to the world by kurtis25 · · Score: 1

    There is more to the world then residential neighborhoods. They can do national parks, city parks, amusement parks and buildings.

  63. Are volley guns legal in the U.S.? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    Seems like the perfect response, especially if you could get one of the newer types that just fires a bunch of .22LRs. "Newer" is relative, of course. I don't think anyone has actually made volley guns for general sale in at least 50 years, probably much longer.

  64. Arfcom asks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the best round to use on these drones?

  65. Re:If this was the government it'd be a flame war. by gfreeman · · Score: 1

    There are no CIA, DoD or law enforcement agencies with drones operating in public areas of the United States imaging civilians.

    I admire the confidence of this statement.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  66. One-word solution for unwelcome Google drones by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    "Pull!"

  67. finally! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I eagerly await the photographic proof of the existence of bigfoot!
    Angry, pissed-off bigfoot.

    Of course, doubters will point out the pictures are all blurry, but that's only due to them trying to swat down these noisy annoying drones

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  68. Is it just me, by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...or did anyone else feel a chill by the juxtaposition of "the makers assure us" that they can't be used for citizen surveillance and "verboten"?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  69. Re:If this was the government it'd be a flame war. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    I was wrong, a couple PDs have gotten FAA certificates for drones, but it's unclear if they are even operating.