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.

40 of 182 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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...

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  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
  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!
  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 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.

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

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

  5. 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 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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: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!
  7. 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 Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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 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.

  10. 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.
  11. Re:sigh by FlyMysticalDJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought that was facebook...

  12. 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 ...

  13. two words. by Dee+Ann_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They Live.

  14. 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
  15. 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 ----
  16. 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.
  17. 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.