Eric Schmidt: Regulate Civilian Drones Now

An anonymous reader writes "Google Chairman Eric Schmidt is urging lawmakers to regulate the use of unmanned aircraft by civilians — and quickly. He posed this hypothetical situation to The Guardian: 'You're having a dispute with your neighbor. How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?' Schmidt went on to bring up military and terrorist concerns. 'I'm not going to pass judgment on whether armies should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratize the ability to fight war to every single human being. It's got to be regulated... It's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it... it's not going to happen.'"

Comments

How would you feel about it?

[Osgeld]

I live outside city limits, so I would take my shotgun and get rid of the annoying nuance flying over my house, how would my neighbor feel about it... dont care

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you feel about being charged criminally for destroying your neighbor's property that he was using in a perfectly legal fashion? City or no city, you can't just shoot up things that belong to other people.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a terrorist would object to surveillance 24/7. What are you hiding? Think of the children? 9/11 forever!!

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not guarantee the safety of trespassers nor their property. Yes, how high it is flying becomes an issue though. Perhaps there should just be a definition of trespassing that includes a maximum altitude?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets say you own a house in the suburbs some where. Well, aside from the lot itself, the area extends up to 500 feet above the ground. Once a drone is outside of that area, then it can be considered a problem. Otherwise it is trespassing and can be dealt with means available.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[phantomfive]

Yeah, I think this is basically Eric Schmidt having #richPersonProblems. If that happened to me, I would wonder why anyone wants to do such a boring thing with their life as watch me. But now that he is rich, he is concerned about reporters and paparazzi, and random people who might try to find some reason to sue him.

The funny thing is he's ok with the government doing it. That's kind of hilarious.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[ohnocitizen]

If the drone was high enough, how much good would a shotgun do you?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[phantomfive]

How would you feel about being charged criminally for destroying your neighbor's property that he was using in a perfectly legal fashion? City or no city, you can't just shoot up things that belong to other people.

That is a case I would love to take to court, and see the jury try to keep from laughing. I would be totally willing to testify in my own defense, and watch the other party try to come up with a reasonable explanation for what they were doing.

BTW this sort of thing has already happened.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And for those of us within city limits, I'd suggest a potato cannon. Fun to build, fun to use!

captcha: decline

Re: How would you feel about it?

[SuricouRaven]

Which is exactly what the annoying neighbor wants: Once you shoot the drone down, then he can sue you for destruction of property.

This is another use of a very common, and very powerful, trick:
1. Taunt opponent, provoking them into striking back. If they don't, taunt harder.
2. Once they strike back, call upon authority to come to your aid.

It's the same basic approach be it the school bully trying to provoke a victim into hitting him so that victim will be expelled for assault, or a difficult neighbor harassing you with littering, noise and things thrown over the fence in the hope you'll hit him and he can have you arrested for assault. Drones are just another avenue to exploit an age-old trick.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Frosty Piss]

...#richPersonProblems ... I would wonder why anyone wants to do such a boring thing with their life as watch me.

"Poor Person" neighbor disputes can get pretty nasty. RC aircraft and inexpensive high-def digital cameras are cheap these days. I'm really not interested in some whacked-out neighbor buzzing my property all day and night.

Or, maybe he's looking for my weed patch...

Who knows, but yes, I'd like to be able to call the cops on such an asshole, even after I take the thing out with my unnecessary (but legally purchased and licensed) semi-automatic assault rifle.

Actually, I'd VERY MUCH like to be able to call the cops after taking the drone out, as I'm sure my asshole neighbor will be WAY pissed off.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[amiga3D]

I'm thinking green laser. Or maybe a stinger missile, that'd be so cool. I don't see why the army should get to have all the fun.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[phantomfive]

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that someone with your user name gets into weird neighborhood disputes.........

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Frosty Piss]

That is a case I would love to take to court, and see the jury try to keep from laughing.

The jury can laugh all they want, but if the activity of your neighbor was LEGAL, and you in fact destroyed your neighbor's personal property while it was doing something LEGAL, the judge will most likely instruct the jury that you broke the law and are liable. Only judges make the law, juries follow the law.

I would be totally willing to testify in my own defense, and watch the other party try to come up with a reasonable explanation for what they were doing.

Your testimony will be that you broke the law. The other party does not need a defense as they did not break the law.

You need to rethink your position on this.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[tchdab1]

He wants to avoid "democratizing" war, but he is OK with governments doing it - I was also struck by this. Is this typical elitist thinking, or an effort to keep the genie in the bottle? Either way, the elites are thinking about what can happen when technology allows anyone to become their own army. Hey guys, it might be time to consider equality.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

People own the air above their property up to a fairly considerable height, much higher than can be reached with a shotgun.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

My airspace extends from my property lines, all the way up to low earth orbit. Anything in that zone is fair game...
We will have to make private interceptor missiles to go after private drones... :)

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Frosty Piss]

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that someone with your user name gets into weird neighborhood disputes...

Dude, there is nothing more refreshingly MANLY than stepping out into your yard and taking a whiz along the fence-line... Keeps me grounded!

Re: How would you feel about it?

[PNutts]

I live near a large-ish airport so depending on how the airspace is carved up the drone's owner may need to worry more about how other people feel about it than me.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[phantomfive]

. Or maybe a stinger missile, that'd be so cool. I don't see why the army should get to have all the fun.

You need to get a Destructive Devices permit, which costs $200, need to swear you are not a criminal, and don't have any domestic violence misdemeanors. Also, your state laws may vary. You can buy a tank, too.

BTW I'm not sure a stinger missile would actually hit a drone....

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Trepidity]

So you think it should be legal to shoot down a civilian airliner that's overflying your property at 30,000 ft?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[phantomfive]

FYI I know someone who did that while drunk and found an electric fence....talk about grounded!

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. Only 500 feet without further paperwork, a valid reason, etc... Anyway, sure it's legal to shoot stuff other people have abandoned on your property, even if they are still operating it.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Frosty Piss]

People own the air above their property up to a fairly considerable height, much higher than can be reached with a shotgun.

Do they, care to quote the law? And, in many places, especially in the city but also in the country, discharging a firearm is regulated.

Think about this: If the Google Car pulls into your driveway, can you go out and start blasting away at it? Think you'll walk away from that unscathed? You can certainly sue Google (as some have done) for invading your privacy, but I think you'll end up owing a few greenbacks for the damage and possibly some sork of "reckless behavior" charge.

It's a nice fantasy to say "I would do this and that". But the reality is you wouldn't and shouldn't.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Trepidity]

Current U.S. law doesn't have a specific altitude, but instead a more subjective requirement that the flight must be high enough to be safe and not unreasonably interfere with the owner's use of the property. What height that would be depends in part on how high the owner has built up: flying over a suburban house at 2000 ft might be legal, but buzzing the observation deck of a 1900-ft skyscraper by passing it at 2000 ft probably isn't.

A bit more here.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Frosty Piss]

FYI I know someone who did that while drunk and found an electric fence....talk about grounded!

MythBusters did that one. It took ONE HELL OF A STREAM to get a shock. I've touched electric fences, it's not that bad, though I wouldn't pee on one intentionally.

My neighbor's azaleas planted at my fence-line? Mysteriously DEAD.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[phantomfive]

In all likelihood, the destruction of any drone that anyone would use to spy on me would end up in small claims court, and isn't really worth worrying about anyway.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[phantomfive]

My neighbor's azaleas planted at my fence-line? Mysteriously DEAD.

It's only because you're frosty

Re: How would you feel about it?

[countach74]

No, you need to rethink your position. Jury nullification used to be common place during prohibition because the law was retarded. If the law is retarded enough to allow someone to spy on their neighbor and the jury is smart enough to recognize the stupidity of the law, they should and will just nullify it. The jury is the law in the courtroom, not the judge, not even... the law!

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Vanderhoth]

What's the point in having a jury if the judge gets to tell them you're guilty?

The truth is the jury has the power to decide based on the situation if you should be held guilty or not, the judge just gets to decide what happens if they find you guilty. Not that I disagree with you on the destruction of property, just on what the function of a judge and jury is.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[jopsen]

Actually, I'd VERY MUCH like to be able to call the cops after taking the drone out, as I'm sure my asshole neighbor will be WAY pissed off.

Hopefully, the cops will teach tell you a thing or two about shooting into the air in a densely populated area... My guess is that a judge would lock you up for a few years...

Re: How would you feel about it?

[davester666]

He's rich enough and connected enough to be part of the 'government'.

You are not.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only judges make the law, juries follow the law.

Sorry no. Judges do NOT make the laws, and a jury is not there to follow the law. In criminal cases, the responsibility of the jury is to determine the facts of the case. That means their sole job is to determine if the law was broken. If they consider the law unjust, they can refuse to convict, but that is the limit of their power. A jury cannot (or at least should not) be involved in deciding a verdict based on their personal opinions of the defendant. The jury in the last Michael Jackson abuse trial was a prime example of how a jury should act. They felt VERY strongly (and I agree) that he was up to something nefarious with those kids. However, their gut feeling was NOT evidence of wrongdoing. The prosecution failed to prove the law was broken, and he was acquitted. I don't agree with the outcome, but that's because I see it as a failure of the prosecution to properly state their case beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. I would have been dismissed because my gut feeling was that he was guilty as all hell, and it would have clouded my ability to weight the evidence.

Now that we've gone over how your statement is false regarding the jury, lets move back to the judge. Again, they do NOT make the laws. The system (supposedly) looks down upon judicial activism, especially from the bench. No, the purpose of a judge in a criminal trial is to maintain order. Their job is to ensure that both sides are heard fairly, and that no one has their rights violated during the proceedings. After the jury returns a verdict stating what laws they find to have been broken, the judge then determines the sentence, again based on the law as written. They are there to APPLY the law, not to create it.

In addition, the judge would most certainly NOT "instruct the jury that you broke the law and are liable." Wether or not the law was broken is for the JURY to decide, not the judge. The jury would weigh the poster's testimony with that of the neighbor, as well as any other evidence presented. If the law states that the offending device was within his property based on altitude or whatnot, then he could look them in the eye and say "yes, I destroyed this device" and they would not find him guilty. Because according to the law, he was within his rights to do so. Once they find him not-guilty, the judge cannot reverse their ruling if it was made according to the law.

So no, his testimony would not be that he broke the law. His testimony would be that he destroyed an object flying above his property at a certain height that he found intrusive. The JURY would decide if that was breaking the law. In this particular hypothetical case, they jury could find that he was indeed breaking the law if the device was deemed to be not intruding, OR they could find that the NEIGHBOR violated the law by trespassing using the drone. But there would be no "testifying that you broke the law." The testimony would be an account of what happened, and the jury would decide first if the account is accurate, and then if the event described was in violation or not.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't he the same one who said privacy is dead?

What he means is that privacy for peons is dead because big companies like Google are power and information brokers. And he doesn't want democratization of power and information brokering because it gets in the way of his brave new world.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[erroneus]

Actually you can.

My mother, for example, was living outside of a city in Texas. The neighbor's goat kept getting out eating things. She shot it in the head from 50 yards with a 22 pistol dropping it with one shot. She was in a wheel chair by that time.

County police were called, they had a good laugh, offered to dispose of the dead goat and drove away.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[FSWKU]

This is another use of a very common, and very powerful, trick:
1. Taunt opponent, provoking them into striking back. If they don't, taunt harder.
2. Once they strike back, call upon authority to come to your aid.

So basically the same thing those ass-clowns at Westboro try to do.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

They pay me a toll.. :)

Re: How would you feel about it?

[frootcakeuk]

As long as people's windows overlook other people's gardens, I don't think there'll be any jurisdiction changes regarding this at any point.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology is advancing more rapidly than our social and political behavior. We're basically still stuck with the hunter-gatherer brains we had before we moved to agriculture 8000 years ago. That's why I'm hoping the Singularity is not far off, so we can move our intelligence beyond petty wars and not-so-petty ones.

We're not too far from any human having the ability to kill any other human anywhere on earth at any time, with nothing to stop us. What will our civilization be like then? How will we handle that power?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[fustakrakich]

There already is a minimum altitude. 500 feet... 1000 over urban areas...

Oh, and fuck this Eric Schmidt... He's an ass... Already a proven fact.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[J05H]

If the drone is over someone else's property, it is trespassing in their airspace. This may be especially true below 500' and anything over that is FAA controlled. So the drone flying neighbor is either going to be violating your property or common airspace.

If the neighbors' houses were close together and the person was still over their property but actively observing your property? That would be interesting in court.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

Shame on The Atlantic for this coverage. They skirt around an issue that is pretty clear. What they say is true when they talk about "What are you going to do about it", as in, if you sue for trespass you may not be able show any "damages" at all, so it may not work. But the law is clear about defending your property, and you are within your rights to take out a trespassing drone with shotgun or slingshot or whatever tool you won't get in trouble just for using.

The general rule (there are restrictions based on proximity to airports, communication tower installations, etc.) you still control your airspace up to 600 feet. ANY object intruding into this space on your property is trespassing, be it a drone, an aircraft, a blimp, what-have-you. ABOVE 600 feet is all regulated in some way by the FAA, and you can NOT fly your drone into that space without authorization. The FAA stopped taking applications for drone licensing in all regulated airspace in 2004, except from DHS and the DoD. So right now no private or local government entity can get clearance to fly above 600 feet, even on their own property.

That also means that Eric Schmidt is full of crap. I don't know what his agenda is, but the government is already monopolizing the use of drones everywhere that's not private property or very low, so there is no need to further regulate "civilian" use of them.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And he's ok with Google (and everyone else, really) doing the digital version, too.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[PopeRatzo]

If the Google Car pulls into your driveway, can you go out and start blasting away at it?

If Google does not respond to reasonable requests to remove it, yes.

Better than "blasting away" would be to just confiscate it.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

He's rich enough and connected enough to be part of the 'government'.

You are not.

This explains Schmidt's motivation here pretty well. The modern equivalent of walking around yelling "shut up slave" and quipping "let them eat cake."

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live outside city limits, so I would take my shotgun and get rid of the annoying nuance flying over my house

And if you're inside city limits, you do the same, except with an air rifle instead of a shotgun. Muzzle velocity is comparable to a .22.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[jamstar7]

How in the hell is my neighbor's drone legal? Under 600 feet he's tresspassing and invading my privacy. Over 600 feet he's subject to FAA regs, and they don't license them anymore for private citizens, haven't since '04.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is he's ok with the government doing it. That's kind of hilarious.

It would be even more funny when you realize that "civilian" isn't the same as "corporate". Google could still fly its' own drones to create a "bird's eye" view a la Bing Maps.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grew up on a farm. As a young boy, I can categorically confirm that pissing on an electric fence can shock you.
Wasn't bad though. Been there done that.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[squiggleslash]

I don't think he's having rich people problems, it's just he's concerned that a (currently new) technology, once matured, could be used - even in a well meaning way - to track and compromise the privacy of ordinary people just going about their ordinary business, by third parties who feel they need the information to do their jobs. For example, a drone might be operated by a company that sells advertising, tracking things like what stores you go to and who your friends are, so that it can deliver advertising more appropriate to your interests.

I'm pretty sure that's what Schmidt is concerned about, anyway.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Concerned Onlooker]

How do you think the neighbor would feel about being criminally charged for eavesdropping?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[dryeo]

Wars have been started by similar acts, eg one of the last times Canada (actually the British Empire) and the States went to war was over an American shooting a trespassing pig and the proposed compensation for the dead pig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_war

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Mabhatter]

Schmidt seems to miss that YOU won't be able to buy drones. Current "drones" like AR.Drone are just RC planes... They are counted as toys. Lose them on your neighbors property is just too bad for you.

The issue is that there isn't much difference between big RC hobby rigs and "Drones" other than what you are allowed to mount on the device. For example a TV station cannot legally use footage from an AR.Drone because a) they would have no permission to operate on someone's property, and b) using RC Craft hobby craft for commercial services, or with commercial radios kicks them out of operating as "toys" and the FAA/FCC will get you.

Right now there is no "drone" classification. TOYS (RC planes, copters, kites, etc) operate below 500 foot and have size restrictions. AIRCRAFT are regulated by the FAA/FCC and must operate ABOVE 500 foot except for takeoff and landings. The FAA wants to regulate DRONES BELOW 500 foot, claiming they can regulate "anything flying".

A REGULATED aircraft you would not be allowed to interfere with, and would carry heavy fines. With technology so far, full-size planes and choppers at 500 foot weren't very useful for survailence, and make too much noise. Operating that close to ground is considered dangerous operation with humans on board as well. Now that RC craft are good enough platforms, they want to take away the 500 foot limit... In fact pilots of REAL PLANES don't want them in COMMERCIAL airspace either... Because Drone "pilots" are reckless to manned craft.

Traditionally the 500 foot limit has been "your property" (above thst counted like the road as public right of way) so we are in a holding pattern wether courts will say moving government craft into that space requires a warrant or not.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[frosty_tsm]

Who knows, but yes, I'd like to be able to call the cops on such an asshole, even after I take the thing out with my unnecessary (but legally purchased and licensed) semi-automatic assault rifle.

Nothing against owning, but this job is best done with a shotgun with #8 shot. You're going to have a hard time hitting a flying target with a rifle and the round will travel for miles (most have effective distances of at least half a mile... a high angle shot will send it farther). #8 and other skeet shot loses it's lethality very quickly but should pack enough punch to take out a non-ruggedized drone.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I don't know what this buffoon's agenda is, either, but as usual, he worries about private civilians rather than government misusing things.

I'd rather have 1000 private drones over my property, and my name sold off on 10,000 lists of what I buy to 100,000 companies, than have one government official spying into either.

Corporation gets out of control, "BUY THIS BUY THIS BUY THIS!"

Government gets out of control, loss of privacy, freedom. Death.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[desertfool]

I was going to say something similar. This comment from the CEO of the company that drove down my street snapping pictures of my house.

Good God, I hate Google.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I think I'd feel better if they started regulating the fucking MILITARY drones first.

I wonder how many FOIA requests it would take to even get the -redacted- version of how many people the US has killed via drone strike globally?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Leslie43]

And who do you think is working with and paying those government officials behind closed doors?

The RIAA, MPAA, Wall Street and NRA have all had their hands directly involved with writing new laws, some people want Congress to wear Nascar style sponsor jackets just so we know exactly who is pulling their strings. You can throw out an abusive government, what do you do with an abusive corporation? How many Enron, BP, and Wall Street Execs went to jail over their scandals?

Yes, you should be wary of government, but pay attention to the guys behind the curtain as well. This is especially true when we have corporations who's profits are nearly as large as our government spending.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[sabri]

The general rule (there are restrictions based on proximity to airports, communication tower installations, etc.) you still control your airspace up to 600 feet. ANY object intruding into this space on your property is trespassing, be it a drone, an aircraft, a blimp, what-have-you. ABOVE 600 feet is all regulated in some way by the FAA, and you can NOT fly your drone into that space without authorization. The FAA stopped taking applications for drone licensing in all regulated airspace in 2004, except from DHS and the DoD. So right now no private or local government entity can get clearance to fly above 600 feet, even on their own property.

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but that is not true (assuming you mean below 600 ft).

First of all, in rural areas I can fly at 500ft above of your home. This is the default minimum altitude. In densely populated areas that is 1000ft. In some designated areas, I can fly as low as 100ft. Second, I can legally fly anywhere I like if I declare an emergency. If I fly at 200ft above your property and you shoot at me because you think I'm trespassing, your ass is going to jail, period.

Bottom line is, you don't control the airspace above your home, with the exception of what you can reasonably use. Perhaps you should read this article.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't want to grab an electric fence if it doesn't have shutoff safety measures. The electricity going through your body contracts your muscles preventing your hands from opening and your hand will tighten up even, against your will, and stay that way and you will burn. Never had it happen to me but my physics teacher said he saw it happen to another employee who grabbed something electric. Then another employee grabbed him to pull him away and couldn't let go when the power contracted his muscles and eventually someone else shut off the power before they were able to let go.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[sethstorm]

At that point, Google would find a way to make it so that you couldn't easily block it - much like they did with ad-blocking apps on Google Play.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

You can throw out an abusive government, what do you do with an abusive corporation?

If you can get rid of the elected government officials that kow-tow or have ties with the corporate elites, the problem is solved. Unfortunately, they are often the same people these days. A lot of the executives running Goldman Sachs when they trashed the financial system and demanded tax money bailouts are now administration appointees in charge of the Washington regulatory agencies.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[nametaken]

You're probably right, but I think this does have "regular people" implications beyond paparazzi and government spying.

For instance, I imagine most of us have heard about the repeated issues with anti-hunting activists flying UAV's over a hunt club property to record people hunting. At least four times, hunters have just shot the thing down. The activists complain that the hunters shouldn't be able to damage their uav, where the hunters complain that outside parties shouldn't be harassing people engaging in a legal activity on private property. It's obvious to me that this is the kind of extreme assholery that (perhaps prematurely) forces us to consider what should and shouldn't be ok.

http://www.suasnews.com/2012/11/19719/activists-drone-shot-out-of-the-sky-for-fourth-time/

As someone with a passing interest in hobby UAV's, I don't want to see this kind of thing turn into a government-only, legal nightmare. As a human being, I don't want people being assholes with this technology, as it has gotten ridiculously easy to operate and very inexpensive. Any jamoke can own and operate a quadcopter with an HD camera.

I don't agree or disagree with Schmidt, but while I don't share his specific personal concerns, it's something that's going to have to be dealt with, somehow.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Em Adespoton]

He wants to avoid "democratizing" war, but he is OK with governments doing it - I was also struck by this. Is this typical elitist thinking, or an effort to keep the genie in the bottle? Either way, the elites are thinking about what can happen when technology allows anyone to become their own army. Hey guys, it might be time to consider equality.

The odd thing is, isn't the US concept of "right to bear arms" all about people being able to arm and defend themselves against not just outside forces, but the government as well? His statement sounds like something a British MP would have been saying about the colonies in the late 1700's....

Personally, I'd much rather have my neighbor buzzing my place with a quadcopter with HD camera than have them doing something less obtrusive, like using a scope or a parabolic mic, or going through my trash. I guess once your property gets big enough that the scope/parabolic mic can't actually see as far as your house, the airspace thing becomes more of an issue. But if you've got enough property for there to be a distinction other than the noise and visible annoyance of the drone, than the drone is obviously trespassing, and you live somewhere where shooting it down on your own property (or just jamming the RF signal so it falls to the ground) should be perfectly legal and acceptable activity.

After all, most people's neighbor could already do this much more cheaply by putting their cellphone in streaming video mode and tying it to a helium baloon at the property line. That would be a lot quieter, too.

And why the sudden jump from commercial drone surveillance being invasion of privacy to militarization of the people (who are already supposed to be militarized anyway)? Sure, it could be used that way, but we all know that drones in private hands aren't going to be used to assassinate anyone; they're going to be used to take photos/videos that can be sold to tabloids and/or posted online. Hardly a group of people that's going to invade Iraq or liberate Texas.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[wmbetts]

My great grand-dad did and there was a person sitting in the airplane. If I remember right he just had to pay a fine.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but that is not true (assuming you mean below 600 ft).

Check right here, for one. As you can see, FAA regulated space starts at 600 feet in most cases (plenty of exceptions, as I pointed out), as a general rule.

First of all, in rural areas I can fly at 500ft above of your home.

That's only IF you have authorization from the FAA, which you don't, and they aren't taking applications now from anyone except DHS and the DoD. More information on that can be found at this link. Note they mention that Certificates of Waiver for Civil (Commercial) Use are currently on hold, which has been the case since 2004.

If I fly at 200ft above your property and you shoot at me because you think I'm trespassing, your ass is going to jail, period.

You may get arrested, but you will never be convicted of a crime related to damaging the property or persons that were trespassing - they are trespassing. There have been cases of this already, including ones involving blimps, and ones I have personal knowledge of that basically came down to the fact that since the craft was flying very low right over the house, the property owner had every right to defend his property with a weapon. You're too low over someone else's property, that's trespassing, period.

As I mentioned, there are exceptions in some areas, especially urban environments, but unless you can site some specific regulation or authority that provides and exception to low-altitude trespassing in general for any random flying craft, then I think you're just making some wrong assumptions.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Even commerical drones fly above your shotgun range. Why do you think Google has images of your backyard without you noticing?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[cbiltcliffe]

Electric fences don't work like that. There isn't a voltage on the line continuously. It's usually only a momentary jolt about a second or so between each one, so you'd easily be able to let go.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are existing laws to deal with that. We don't need a huge new class of prior restraint style jackboot legislation to deal with a tiny, tiny potential nusance problem.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[cffrost]

This is another use of a very common, and very powerful, trick:
1. Taunt opponent, provoking them into striking back. If they don't, taunt harder.
2. Once they strike back, call upon authority to come to your aid.

Sounds like the plot of Pacific Heights.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

You have a good point, but I really don't see an issue that calls for more government regulation. Assholes fly their UAVs into private property, property owners and guests shoot them down. What we do not need is a regulation that allows the UAVs to trespass, nor one that prohibits property owners from defending their property.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[TubeSteak]

Perhaps you should read this article.

While he's at it, he should learn about mineral rights too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_rights

The notion that our ownership of land stretches from heaven to hell is extremely outdated.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[breeze95]

That also means that Eric Schmidt is full of crap. I don't know what his agenda is, but the government is already monopolizing the use of drones everywhere that's not private property or very low, so there is no need to further regulate "civilian" use of them.

His agenda is he wants to prevent paparazzi and other civilians from being able spy on their targets from above. Can you imagine, you are a famous person getting it on with a groupie in your pool within your secluded property and unknown to you paparazzi is filming it all from above. I don't blame Eric Schmidt for his position on this one. It's a privacy issue.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[sir-gold]

There is nothing wrong with "buy this buy this!", that is the legitimate basis of healthy capitalism, and not why corporations are dangerous.

When corporations got out of control in the past, we ended up with things like company towns (where you are paid in "company dollars" that are only valid at the company store and the company apartment buildings), and violent oppressions of labor movements and labor strikes.

You know what saved us from those things? the Government.

Both Government and Corporations can be evil when allowed to run out of control, but there is a crucial difference between the two. The government (at least in theory) is controlled directly by the people, whereas the people have almost no control at all over private corporations, except in instances where they were able to use the government as a tool to set limits on the behavior of corporations (OSHA, Minimum wage, EPA, FTC, etc).

Yes, I agree that corporations at their worst are nothing compared to a government at it's worst, but that doesn't mean you should fight the government (not while we still have the right to vote anyway).

You can fight the burglar AND the pit bull at the same time, or you can take control of the pit bull and use it against the burglar, which would you rather do?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. As they also could wifi enable the fleet of drones and record your passwords and email and traffic, all by accident of course.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[peted56]

They also got your WiFi data as they drove by.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[isorox]

You have a good point, but I really don't see an issue that calls for more government regulation. Assholes fly their UAVs into private property, property owners and guests shoot them down. What we do not need is a regulation that allows the UAVs to trespass, nor one that prohibits property owners from defending their property.

So in the US, if someone parks on your property, you're allowed to crush their at?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Immerman]

For some reason you reminded me of a scene in Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" where Jubal argues that Martian cannibalism may in fact be a sign of a more advanced civilisation. After all, if cannibalism were accepted in our civilisation how many people would you be willing to turn your back on, what with the price of beef being what it is?

As for being able to kill anyone anywhere, I'm not overly worried. We already have extradition treaties in place for murderers, and generally speaking people are far more likely to want to kill people they've actually encountered, in which case a plain old handgun/knife/poison has been getting the job done for a long time. The only ones likely to be significantly more at risk are celebrities (media, political, etc), and frankly I have no great problem with that - if you choose to live your life in the public eye, and reap the benefits thereof, then why shouldn't you also face the repercussions as well?

The big problem would be those who get thrust into the limelight largely against their will - the scientist whose inconvenient findings make them a target for frothing denialists for example. For that, well, we can only hope our ability to track the killer keeps pace with thir ability to kill remotely. You may be able to pilot a cyanide loaded mosquito-drone via from the other side of the planet via an encypted onion network, but you'll still need to get it there in the first place. On the other hand if we *can* track such activity that bodes ill for any resistance to abusive power blocks. I suspect the reality will be much as it is now - killing someone and getting away with it will depend on your having the wealth or intelligence to arrange for non-trivial investigative countermeasures, so that for most people the only thing that will change is the range of their weapons.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Immerman]

Okay, so we'll need a big bottle rocket, a digital camera, an arduino, and some electronically controlled fins. I forsee a budding market for target-tracking anti-drone fireworks...

Re: How would you feel about it?

[phantomfive]

That would be a lot of fun.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

That also means that Eric Schmidt is full of crap. I don't know what his agenda is, but the government is already monopolizing the use of drones everywhere that's not private property or very low, so there is no need to further regulate "civilian" use of them.

His agenda is he wants to prevent paparazzi and other civilians from being able spy on their targets from above. Can you imagine, you are a famous person getting it on with a groupie in your pool within your secluded property and unknown to you paparazzi is filming it all from above. I don't blame Eric Schmidt for his position on this one. It's a privacy issue.

So it's a 1%'er problem? Or more like a 0.001%'er problem? Yea, I'm so sympathetic to the tribulations and suffering of the super-rich and powerful. It's not like they have any way to defend themselves when they are having wild nude parties on their private multi-million dollar estates. Oh, the humanity!

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

You have a good point, but I really don't see an issue that calls for more government regulation. Assholes fly their UAVs into private property, property owners and guests shoot them down. What we do not need is a regulation that allows the UAVs to trespass, nor one that prohibits property owners from defending their property.

So in the US, if someone parks on your property, you're allowed to crush their at?

You are certainly within your rights to have it towed at the owner's expense. And, yes, you are allowed to defend your property in a reasonable way. For a drone, your actions would be better defended with "No Trespassing" signs and shouting a warning to the drone and a demand that they leave. If the drone refuses to comply, you can't just pick it up and move it, and it's not practical to try to capture it to make sure it doesn't get damaged, so it's perfectly reasonable to shoot it down.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Deadstick]

Wolf, do you have any idea what "flight level 600" means?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[VortexCortex]

Wars have been started by similar acts, eg one of the last times Canada (actually the British Empire) and the States went to war was over an American shooting a trespassing pig and the proposed compensation for the dead pig. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_war

One dead pig? That's nothing!

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Deadstick]

Supe, Congress took that airspace away from you with the Air Commerce Act of 1926.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[VortexCortex]

The modern equivalent of walking around yelling "shut up slave" and quipping "let them eat cake."

I have the weirdest boner right now...

Re: How would you feel about it?

[MacGyver2210]

In case he didn't, instead of being a snarky dick, you should have mentioned it means 60,000 Feet.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[MacGyver2210]

The 500 ft/1000 over urban applies to FAR Pt 103 Ultralights - not drones. If they are not manned, they do not need to meet these reqs. They are treated the same as R/C aircraft, in which case, the only law is "Don't fly it into people or things, or you'll have a bad day."

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Cyberax]

So can I take a shotgun and shoot your car?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[MacGyver2210]

The "funniest" part is that he means individuals - as opposed to corporations. Not as opposed to military or police, as one would normally assume. He wants to protect his rights as an official of one of the most powerful companies in the world, at the expense of freedoms we already have. What ever happened to "don't be evil"?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Osgeld]

dunno, is my car flying over your house all day?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Deadstick]

I prefer to let people do their own homework. Especially when they didn't do it before they handed down pronunciamenti.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was Jurassic Park or Muppets 2011 depending on how old you are.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[sonamchauhan]

You've not been drinking enough water again Harald!

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you feel living in America when they will just shoot anything and anyone, commie pinko filthy socialist laws be damned.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[emt377]

The 500 ft/1000 over urban applies to FAR Pt 103 Ultralights - not drones. If they are not manned, they do not need to meet these reqs. They are treated the same as R/C aircraft, in which case, the only law is "Don't fly it into people or things, or you'll have a bad day."

I fly lots of RC aircraft, both heli and fixed-wing, and can tell you it's not easy to find a decent flying field. You can't fly above 400 ft, out of visual sight (not that you'd want to without a first-person-view link), over people's property, over roads and highways (including waterways, marinas, etc), or anywhere it's banned. And you'd be amazed how just about every piddly town has an ordinance prohibiting all forms of unmanned model aircraft. This is why it's so hard to find anywhere to fly. Unless you live out in the NV desert the issue of private surveillance drones just doesn't exist. And if you do live in the middle of nowhere you might have a fair amount of acreage to keep tabs on, in which case having one is justifiable. Basically, the whole thing is a complete non-issue for private users. It's really only government and some limited commercial uses, like law enforcement, coast guard/search and rescue, high-acreage businesses like farming and ski areas etc, BLM/Forest Dept, and such where regulation is relevant. The reality is that flying model aircraft today's is almost (though not quite) as difficult as finding someplace to go shoot guns. Private small drones don't really require any additional regulation.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[ATMAvatar]

It just so happens this 1%er problem also happens to serve the general public's interest as well. I'm more than happy for Eric Schmidt to use his fame and resources to fight a fight which benefits me in at least a small part as well.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[c]

Yes, but what do you expect? Mess with a Canadian's bacon, there's going to be consequences...

Re: How would you feel about it?

[blahplusplus]

"Corporation gets out of control, "BUY THIS BUY THIS BUY THIS!""

Tell that to blackwater.

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

Re: How would you feel about it?

[emt377]

That is a case I would love to take to court, and see the jury try to keep from laughing. I would be totally willing to testify in my own defense, and watch the other party try to come up with a reasonable explanation for what they were doing.

Depending on where you live, exposing yourself to even the risk of being prosecuted and convicted of negligently discharging a firearm is a really poor idea. In CA a misdemeanor conviction will result in a fine of up $1000, up to 12 months in county jail, and a ten year ban on gun ownership. A felony conviction is a strike on your criminal record (resulting in a doubling of your sentence should you do something similarly foolish again), up to a $10000 fine, up to 3 years in a state correctional institution, a permanent revocation of your second amendment right to bear arms, and your registration as a convicted felon.

Basically, if someone flies a drone over your property you reach for the phone and call 911. Not your gun.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

It just so happens this 1%er problem also happens to serve the general public's interest as well. I'm more than happy for Eric Schmidt to use his fame and resources to fight a fight which benefits me in at least a small part as well.

It won't benefit you. He's basically asking for government protection (paid for by everyone else) for something that he could easily buy his own protection for, and that nobody else (the vast majority PAYING the taxes for his protection) will ever need (because the paparazzi aren't spying on them).

He's advocating the worst kind of Corporate welfare imaginable.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That also means that Eric Schmidt is full of crap. I don't know what his agenda is, but the government is already monopolizing the use of drones everywhere that's not private property or very low, so there is no need to further regulate "civilian" use of them.

Private "civilian" drones are being outlawed in many states because backyard environmentalists are using them to spot corporations doing illegal dumping (http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/03/01/153241/texas-declares-war-on-robots) or other "questionable" things. Maybe Google is doing something it shouldn't be and he's afraid of getting caught.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[gmhowell]

Can you imagine, you are a famous person getting it on with a groupie in your pool within your secluded property .

Don't I wish?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[gmhowell]

People own the air above their property up to a fairly considerable height, much higher than can be reached with a shotgun.

Thank Ronnie Barrett for the 50 cal that bears his name.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[gmhowell]

Think about this: If the Google Car pulls into your driveway, can you go out and start blasting away at it?

I believe the approved procedure is to fire a shotgun blast through the door and then one into the air. Or perhaps the other way around.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, would you explain the unmarked (yes, as in NO registration numbers) small planes which circle for hours on end in our area, Absolutely below 500 ft...
Yes, I 'know' they are dea/whatever spotter planes, but :
1 shouldn't ALL unmarked planes be considered terrorists doing evil terroristy shit and be shot out of the sky posthaste ?
2 *supposedly* even these sky narcs are supposed to respect the altitude restrictions all other private pilots have to follow, but in reality, they can fly all day under 500 ft, and there is no effective redressing 'my' government about such abuse...
Based on a true story...

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Pseudonym]

So you're saying you'd be happier with the phone company tapping your phone than the NSA? Chances are the phone company is doing it for the NSA.

And, of course, it also works the other way around. If you don't think that corporations have bought and paid for enough politicians and staffers that they can cause loss of privacy, freedom and even death, then you haven't spent enough time on Slashdot.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Cosgrach]

Eric Schmidt can go and fuck himself.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[martin-boundary]

He's also OK with Google doing it to "poor" people. I wouldn't take much stock in Eric Schmidt's opinions. Treat him like you would any corporate/political shill.

Hell, those comments of his aren't even intended for *you*, they're brownnosing the Washington crowd, who need to know that Google is one of "them" in exchange for some juicy future contracts that might skirt the line.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really.. Why is he not concerned about people wearing Google glass and invading others privacy?

He should ask this question too "How would you feel if someone is recording your every movement without your permission ?"

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

...that, or he just learned of another company patenting street view improved with drones.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget the Hatfield-McCoy feud, which was a good deal more serious than anything involving Canada.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Myopic]

Holy fuck. That war was is almost as stupid and baseless as the Iraq war.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[ArsonSmith]

Like when I'm changing and the wife complains that I left the blinds open. I just say, "It'd teach them right to be looking in our windows and have to see my naked fat ass."

Re: How would you feel about it?

[andydread]

tell us how you feel. I bet you LOVE Apple.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Schmidt is probably also OK with companies rich enough to obtain permits to fly drones over your home.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[dryeo]

Not really, the San Juan islands did have strategic value at a time when America and the British Empire didn't get along as well as now. Also this was during the lead up to the American civil war and the south was counting on the support of the British Empire as England was very depend on cotton for their textile industry. Unluckily for the south, England had stockpiled so much cotton that when the civil war broke out England didn't need to get involved and stayed neutral which led to the south losing the war.
Once the civil war ended, it led directly to Canada becoming an independent nation as they were scared of the States and the Provinces united for strength. Things were different back then.
Of course the best part of that war was zero casualties, if the Iraqi war ended with zero casualties I doubt that there would be many complaints.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Ballmer just moved in next door to Eric ...

Re: How would you feel about it?

[tlhIngan]

I don't think he's having rich people problems, it's just he's concerned that a (currently new) technology, once matured, could be used - even in a well meaning way - to track and compromise the privacy of ordinary people just going about their ordinary business, by third parties who feel they need the information to do their jobs. For example, a drone might be operated by a company that sells advertising, tracking things like what stores you go to and who your friends are, so that it can deliver advertising more appropriate to your interests.

I'm pretty sure that's what Schmidt is concerned about, anyway.

Exactly. If ordinary people are using Google-branded glasses to spy on other people, its OK (note - Schmidt has been seen commuting wearing Google Glass continually). It's just not OK to do the same via a camera that's not controlled by them.

And yes, people will use Google Glass the same way he finds offensive.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[girlintraining]

but unless you can site some specific regulation or authority that provides and exception to low-altitude trespassing in general for any random flying craft, then I think you're just making some wrong assumptions.

Hot air balloon landings have plenty of legal precident. None of them end with "and you can shoot at them during landing." Now, while it's been established that in cases of emergency -- or because the aircraft simply lacks the ability to prevent landing on your property (or anyone else's for that matter), it doesn't become yours, nor do you get any rights to it, including the right to move it. The police have to do that. Yes, it's been to court. There have been assholes with guns that have tried to attack the balloonist and then keep the chase vehicle off the property. It didn't end well for them... and by not ending well, I mean they were led away in handcuffs, possibly unpleasantly depending on how they used their weapon.

But you know what? Amazingly, hot air balloon events happen every fall, all over the country, and both the balloonists and the property owners manage to settle their differences peacefully, without guns, debates about privacy, land ownership rights, etc. It goes a little like this, "Sorry I landed in your corn field. We can pay you for the damage." And the property owner responds with, "Hey, that's cool. Just sign here." And away they both go, satisfied and without any violence or involvement of the legal system.

Amazingly, this happens about 99.95% of the time. Of the remaining 0.05%, some fucker decided to be an unreaonable prick, and was punished accordingly for it. Very occasionally, said fucker causes death and/or destruction before said punishment is handed down... usually with some additional helpings on top.

99.95% of the laws on the books are to deal with that random crazy asshole. Laws aren't needed for reasonable people, and reasonable people don't need to concern themselves with the law. All this talk about regulating drones is silly, because none of the regulations discussed either in the original article, or any of these replies on slashdot, actually goes to answering the question -- what do you do with that 0.05%?

The legislator should know better than to try to write blanket legislation that has no precident -- you write laws based on things that are actual problems, not imaginary ones. When we actually have a case of some asshole flying a drone over some other asshole's property, and they (predictably) decide to be assholes to each other with escalating levels of assholery, then we'll have something to legislate. And the law should narrowly and only target the two assholes. The specific mechanics of it, I leave up to you, the reader, or the legislator who will never read this.

But that's the only reasonable way to deal with the law; reactively. We can't predict what the assholes of the world are going to come up with next as a punishment upon themselves and us... we just have to wait and see. Because they are endlessly resourceful and unreasonable; But there are thankfully not very many of them.

So we observe them, document the behavior, test the hypothesis, and then present a conclusion (ie, a new law). And thus the law moves incrementally forward, and we as reasonable people can get on with our reasonable lives, trusting that unreasonable people will be slowly, but inexorably, pushed to the periphery.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[PopeRatzo]

That's right.

If you outlaw drones, then only outlaws will have drones.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your advice seems cogent for blue states/urban areas.

Outside of city limits in red states? Blasting is likely a viable option... they have strong property rights. Someone's drone is being a nuisance on someone else's property? That drone waived its right to live and its owner waived their property rights protection for the drone.

Haha.

It's a basic consequence of the libertarian ethos... the state doesn't have to mediate every dispute. Then again, it causes people to be much more polite: e.g. people ask before they hunt on your property.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Rich0]

If you're bleeding from a wound while hunting and the nearest road or place to find help is on the other side of somebody's private property you can walk right across it, and if the guy shoots you along the way it is murder. That doesn't mean that you can have a picnic in their backyard and be exempt from trespassing laws, especially if you're asked to leave.

I suspect that courts would view an aircraft that is just going from point A to point B and happens to pass over a house differently than somebody who sets up an aircraft that basically hovers in the same place 24x7 minus refueling stops, regardless of exact altitude. A neighbor who happens to launch a hot air balloon from their yard once a month probably would be treated differently than one that tethers a huge balloon to their house with the words "Buy apples here!" on it.

I don't think the solution to any of this involves bans on drones - it just involves applying common sense, which for the most parts courts tend to do in cases where neighbors go out of their way to tick each other off.

Personally, I'd rather see stuff like this democratized. The big corporations and such are going to have subscriptions to data feeds on everybody anyway, so at least if we make the data available to everybody culture can change to deal with it. The fact is that everybody around you has done stuff that they would never admit to, and the fact that it usually isn't documented and accessible lets us all live in the fantasy world where everybody is perfect except for a few unlucky individuals who get caught and have their reputations destroyed for life (heaven help you if you're caught urinating in public while drunk in college). Once everybody is a documented heathen maybe we can stop treating heathens like they're sub-human.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Rich0]

As I learned on some other gun-control thread on slashdot, about the only thing assault rifles really make sense for is hunting (whether that is larger animals, or people).

For most cases of self defense and such a shotgun is a much more practical weapon (especially if it has a short barrel - speaking only of effectiveness - not of legalities). Such a weapon is devastating at the short ranges typically involved in home defense, won't fire through walls with the right shot, and has little effect on unintended stuff that is in the background. I imagine it has a lot more shock effect than a pistol or rifle as well (if the bad guy somehow ducks behind cover they get to see the general area they were standing in completely trashed, as opposed to a tiny hole in the wall - they're probably going to run, which is really all you should care about). If outdoors you could even fire a warning shot first and not be likely to kill somebody 2 miles down the road.

Not really looking to open a debate on the pros/cons of weapons for home defense, and I'm not sure I'd want to own a shotgun for such use myself. However, the point is that for whatever reason people seem to ignore the utility of shotguns as self-defense weapons.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

So you can't do it, but still refuse to acknowledge your error. Stunning.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

MythBusters did that one. It took ONE HELL OF A STREAM to get a shock.

... from an electrified railway line (3rd rail), which was the underlying myth they were testing. Adam also pissed on an electric fence from close range and got shocked. The issue is that the stream breaks up into droplets pretty early, so over the much longer distance to the rail they did as you say need an unrealistically large diameter stream to get it to work.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you live? I live in a pretty major city and it's not hard to find ranges or drive 40 minutes any direction to the desolate swamps, where no one honestly cares if you fire millions of rounds as long as you don't hurt anyone.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And here in Florida, you could quite literally shoot an entire bus full of children legally; all you have to do is trick them into your house and you have every legal right to murder them. Just make up something about self defense and the local officials in almost every case just gloss it over.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[iMactheKnife]

Sure you can if it's flying over your place spying on you. I recommend #4 shot.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, cos someone landing a hot-air balloon and someone flying over your property with a drone are *exactly* the same thing. NOT!

You sir are either a moron or disingenuous to the extreme.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[hardwarefreak]

That also means that Eric Schmidt is full of crap. I don't know what his agenda is....

He's not full of crap but merely wanting to protect himself and his family/houseguests.

His agenda is the same as every billionaire who entertains wifes/girlfriends/boyfriends/young Asian sex slaves, in birthday suits around/in the pool and hot tub. Fencing currently negates telephoto lenses. To get such shots one must rent a helicopter at thousands per trip, thus only the most high profile celebs are targeted this way, and only for events such as weddings, etc. Schmidt is worried about the eventual $500 or less camera equipped drone which enables just about anyone to plop cash on the counter and snap photos of any billionaire's back yard and naked activities taking place therein.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

He's not full of crap but merely wanting to protect himself and his family/houseguests.

Well he can do that with his own money, instead of demanding the government do it with mine.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not illegal

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live outside city limits, so I would take my shotgun and get rid of the annoying nuance flying over my house, how would my neighbor feel about it... dont care

Ah the American solution to everything: If you don't like it, shoot it.

fuckin inbred hicks.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

why can't google apologists accept that not everybody is religiously tied to an company like they are? just because somebody hates google - for reasons like their privacy breaches - doesn't mean the love google's competitors who are also probably just as guilty of such privacy breaches.
it's a corporation, don't get so emotional and defensive over it.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not illegal

Neither is what Eric is complaining about.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Douglas Goodall]

I think if a drone is flying over my house enough to be considered a constant annoyance, a good rule of thumb might be that if it is close enough to hit with a shotgun shell, it's too close. Thoughts anyone?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[ChrisMaple]

You can throw out an abusive government

A large part of the abuse from government now originates in various bureaucracies which are almost beyond the control of either the congress or the president. They persist beyond elections and exist primarily to feather their own nests (Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy). Cleaning up an abusive US government implies a greater change than any new administration in the country's history.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Occams]

There is nothing wrong with "buy this buy this!" Yes there is. It is extremely irritating.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[hardwarefreak]

He's not full of crap but merely wanting to protect himself and his family/houseguests.

Well he can do that with his own money, instead of demanding the government do it with mine.

I think you misunderstand the issue. He's not asking the govt "to spend your money". He's asking Washington to write laws establsighing the boundaries of legal use of civilian drones. If you have a problem with your money being spent to write laws, which is the Constitutional duty of the Congress, then you need a successful revolution and replacement of the US Constitution. That's a separate topic entirely and unrelated to the issue at hand.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

He's not full of crap but merely wanting to protect himself and his family/houseguests.

Well he can do that with his own money, instead of demanding the government do it with mine.

I think you misunderstand the issue. He's not asking the govt "to spend your money". He's asking Washington to write laws establsighing the boundaries of legal use of civilian drones. If you have a problem with your money being spent to write laws, which is the Constitutional duty of the Congress, then you need a successful revolution and replacement of the US Constitution. That's a separate topic entirely and unrelated to the issue at hand.

You, sir, are full of shit. He's asking for police protection. That costs money. And he's got plenty of money to hire private security. Why should my hard-earned money be spent to cover for his wild sex parties because he wants to have them outdoors in his big walled garden?

He already has a law - it's called trespassing. A drone flying over his property is just as much trespassing and a photographer hopping over the wall.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[hardwarefreak]

He's asking for police protection.

TFA mentions nothing of Schmidt requesting police protection for anything.

He already has a law - it's called trespassing. A drone flying over his property is just as much trespassing and a photographer hopping over the wall.

No, this is not the same under current laws. Which is exactly the type of legislation Schmidt is talking about. And even in locales where aircraft hovering over one's propery might be covered by local trespass ordnances, one has no privacy protection under the law against video cameras shooting him/her while hovering over the neighbor's house, or hovering a half mile away above public property, such as a roadway, park, etc.

And yes, it's apparent you are indeed a crackpot.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Dextrously]

If someone started monitoring me with something like that, I'd probably use it as an opportunity to practice archery, and accidentally miss the target. If you know what I mean. Musta been something in my eye when I let that arrow slip.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? The FAA says you are wrong in respect to the 2004 application limit. I am sure some of the active agencies didn't apply until after drones were a reality for them (2007 or later)... http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and this one too. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faa-accepts-20-new-applications

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, we use proper sentence structure.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Curunir_wolf]

Really? The FAA says you are wrong in respect to the 2004 application limit. I am sure some of the active agencies didn't apply until after drones were a reality for them (2007 or later)... http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153

From your link:

There are currently two ways to get FAA approval to operate a UAS. The first is to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for private sector (civil) aircraft to do research and development, training and flight demonstrations. The second is to obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft. Routine operation of UAS over densely-populated areas is prohibited.

In other words, to experiment in a local area (experimental airworthiness), or actually fly the drone around remotely (COA), which is currently what DHS and the DoD can do. They don't give dates, but the next paragraph is very explicit:

Obtaining an experimental airworthiness certificate for a particular UAS is currently the only way civil operators of unmanned aircraft are accessing the NAS.

And if you follow the "more info" links from that page, you will reach this:

Can I fly a UAS under a COA or experimental certificate for commercial purposes? No. Currently, there are no means to obtain an authorization for commercial UAS operations in the NAS. However, manufacturers may apply for an experimental certificate for the purposes of R&D, market survey and crew training.

There is also a pretty clearly worded "clarification" statement from the FAA, distributed as a PDF.

Finally, your link below describes only applications, which, as I mentioned above and pointed out in the previous post, have all been on hold since 2004.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Hickory Dichotomy]

Bottom line, I would treat the drone the same as a peeping tom. If I catch them, I will have them arrested for trespassing if nothing else. It the case of a drone, same, same. If the local authorities will not take the offender into custody, then a suitable application high velocity lead should take care of the issue as long as it is on or above my property. I will always attempt to take care of this in an appropriate manner but will not hesitate to defend mine own.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[isorox]

You have a good point, but I really don't see an issue that calls for more government regulation. Assholes fly their UAVs into private property, property owners and guests shoot them down. What we do not need is a regulation that allows the UAVs to trespass, nor one that prohibits property owners from defending their property.

So in the US, if someone parks on your property, you're allowed to crush their at?

You are certainly within your rights to have it towed at the owner's expense. And, yes, you are allowed to defend your property in a reasonable way. For a drone, your actions would be better defended with "No Trespassing" signs and shouting a warning to the drone and a demand that they leave. If the drone refuses to comply, you can't just pick it up and move it, and it's not practical to try to capture it to make sure it doesn't get damaged, so it's perfectly reasonable to shoot it down.

Out of interest, does shooting into the air (a dangerous pastime) result in a littering fine?

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasonable people shouldn't need to concern themselves with the law, but with government spying and our ridiculously complicated legal system EVERYONE is a criminal and could be harassed for any reason.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who flys models and is getting into FPV, THANK YOU. I agree with you 100%.

People are talking about this like it's some sort of approaching apocolypse.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just go with barrage balloons like they did in England during WWII. Then the drones have to fly higher or get tangled in the wires you attach to the balloons and they crash...

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is being dealt with. The people who have a right to be on the property are shooting at the thing that they don't want there. Nothing else is needed.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[stenvar]

Pretty much by definition, if it's within shotgun range and over your property, it's trespassing and you have a right to get rid of it.

Re: How would you feel about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG you're right! What if they put an omnidirectional camera on a car and drive it around recording people and their houses/property and then posted that on the internet for everyone to see?????? Or what if someone was able to were a pair of glasses around that could take pictures and video of you while you were talkign to them????? Schmidt is totally right we should stop this kind of activity right away!

so what is different

[berashith]

My neighbors can currently buy a camera and watch me from their property. They can have slightly more visibility for some angles from the air. If the noise is the issue, you can already call in complaints on that , and police will help you remove the nuisance.

Re:so what is different

[phrostie]

he just doesn't want people making google maps obsolete.

Re:so what is different

[buchner.johannes]

My neighbors can currently buy a camera and watch me from their property.

They can? Does the US have no privacy laws at all?

Re:so what is different

[AmiMoJo]

There have been many instances of people filming their neighbour's properties in order to gather evidence against them in the UK. When I first saw a programme about it on TV I was surprised that it was legal, but apparently it is and the programme in question was trying to make out it was a good thing because it helped clamp down on anti-social behaviour.

Moral of the story: built a high wall around your property and keep the curtains closed if you want privacy. People actually do that here, although they usually use tall trees instead of walls.

Re:so what is different

[Anonymous Coward]

Eric Schmidt is a moron. We have anti-stalking laws which will cover this electronic stalking depending on the definition in each state.

Re:so what is different

[PNutts]

Where is it illegal to put a camera on your property that can see someone else's property? Legit question. We're not talking about targeting a bedroom window full frame.

Re:so what is different

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is it illegal to put a camera on your property that can see someone else's property? Legit question. We're not talking about targeting a bedroom window full frame.

Depends on what you do with the camera and depends on where the camera is targeted, the intensity of the stalking and possible threat in some states. It will be considered stalking if the premise laid out by Schmidt is true. 24/7 drone watching you etc ...

1. What Is Stalking? ...
Cyberstalking involves using the Internet or other electronic means to harass. ...
All states have anti-stalking laws, but the legal definitions vary.

https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs14-stk.htm

Re:so what is different

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not talking about targeting a bedroom window full frame.

Actually, that is exactly what this entire conversation is about.

Re:so what is different

[berashith]

so this is my same question. If it is already illegal to do certain things with cameras, then what new law do we need because it can be "on a drone". This is the same as patents for everything where the only difference is " from a computer" .

Re:so what is different

[berashith]

anything that you do in public is by definition not private. Even if the public place is your yard. There are laws pertaining to looking over walls, but i think those get down to who has the best lawyer.

Re:so what is different

[Anonymous Coward]

It is already pretty useless as it is.

Imagery from my town is older than Google Maps is, which is embarrassing as hell.
It wouldn't matter as much if the town was a little one, or the overall structure never changed, but both of those points don't apply here, huge ass port town / almost-city that has changed considerably in the past decade, including a new central town area and huge construction on the outskirts that expanded the town by at least 15+%

With a balloon and parachute system I could get better damn imagery than Google can!
Although it would be redundant, there are many companies who already have done the aerial imagery. Google are just too cheap to actually buy the damn stuff!
There was a really good one who has done the UK.
Not to forget even Microsoft. They have pretty damn recent and accurate maps. MICROSOFT. Microsoft, Google, bloody Microsoft!
Step your game up Google, you are terrible right now.

Re:so what is different

[WGFCrafty]

But don't the British have this crazy "anti-social" law where you can be cited for being rude?

Re:so what is different

[FuzzNugget]

Indeed, they do. It's basically a catch-all enabling anyone with a modicum of power effect a bullshit charge on literally anything their imagination can conjure up, to be against any minor "inconvenience" who isn't technically doing anything illegal.

I read a really good article a while ago on why this such an incredibly bad law, I wish I could find it. But all it takes is a quick Google News search for the term "ASBO" and you'll find out for yourself quite easily.

Re:so what is different

[buchner.johannes]

Where is it illegal to put a camera on your property that can see someone else's property? Legit question.

Everywhere in the EU? To be left alone is a human right. In the UK under Human Rights Act 1988 for instance:

Under the Human Rights Act 1988 the use of CCTV in certain circumstances can be seen as an infringement on privacy. An individual who installs a CCTV camera that points on their neighbour’s property can be infringing on the neighbour’s right to privacy. CCTV cameras installed in the home should be used for home security only.

http://www.civilrightsmovement.co.uk/faq-uk-citizens-cctv-privacy-rights.html
In some countries, government and companies are not allowed to point cameras into public space. Your own yard is private, and no-ones else's business. You just can not set up a camera (or surveillance drone for that matter) and point it at your neighbour. Here are the individual countries in detail as a paper

Re:so what is different

[buchner.johannes]

anything that you do in public is by definition not private. Even if the public place is your yard.

Your yard is a private place, not a public one.

Re:so what is different

[thegarbz]

The UK laws are based on the reasonable expectation of privacy are they not?

If you can easily see into their property from yours then film to your heats content. There's nothing that can stop you. The situation is quite different if they go to efforts to ensure their privacy (i.e. big walls), and you in turn go to efforts to breach it (i.e. camera mounted on telescopic pole).

Re:so what is different

[Rich0]

My neighbors can currently buy a camera and watch me from their property. They can have slightly more visibility for some angles from the air. If the noise is the issue, you can already call in complaints on that , and police will help you remove the nuisance.

You're doing it wrong. You just need to put up a 10 foot wall and have about 2000 yards of space between that and hour house, and lots of strategically placed hedges and such. That should stop anything short of a drone.

Oh wait, you don't own a multi-million-dollar home like Eric Schmidt?

Re:so what is different

[Cederic]

Hmm, no. If I use my camera to record what's going on inside the houses I overlook then that's a breach of privacy. It's reasonable to expect that someone wont film inside your house.

If I happen to glance across and spot my 60yo neighbour giving the gardener a blowjob and he sees me give a double-take before moving on, then that's not a breach of privacy. It's not reasonable to expect occupants of overlooking houses to never look out of their windows.

Then again, I'm a man. The law will fuck me over as a matter of systemic design.

Re:so what is different

[berashith]

if you can be seen from a public space, then it isnt. you dont have the expectation of privacy standing in plain sight of the public, even if you are in what you are calling a private place

Re:so what is different

[thegarbz]

You sure about that? Reasonable expectation to privacy does not take into account the ability to record, only the difficulty as far as I am aware. I.e. if you can see it you can film it. If however you need fancy gear because you can't see it then the act of using that is a breach.

Re:so what is different

[Cederic]

Hmm, you may be right. Certainly a recording of something else that happens to include the inside of someone's house should be fine.

E.g. I use sodding big telephoto lenses to photograph birds in my neighbour's garden. If I used a less long lens to video them, it would be almost impossible not to film in her house.

Should that be reasonable, given I'm sat in my bedroom at the time? Could be an interesting discussion if they ever complain.

Google

[John Wagger]

How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?

If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Re:Google

[stefpe]

.. and if you decide to pork the ole' lady behind your 8ft privacy fence, your neighbor gets it on tape and sells it to realneighborsdoingit.com? Would you be cool with that?

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

If you're going to quote the guy, at least give proper attribution in double quotes and a link to video showing him actually saying that. Here's the citation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew

linked from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Privacy

Re:Google

[n3tm0nk]

Oh yes, of course!! I forgot that everyone should be able to know what is happening in every room of my house just to make sure I don't do anything that would offend anyone else at any given moment of my life. One of the consequences of a free society is that sometimes you will be offended. Period. If you don't like that idea, there is a plethora of communists and dictators that would absolutely LOVE to have you come live in their country. Then all of you can march along the same line and all hold the same opinion. I realize that this idea is attractive to some folks because it relieves them of alot of decision making and introspection. It is so much easier to just do what you are told.....

Re:Google

[phantomfive]

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Eric Schmidt (in a 2009 interview)

"In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you," Schmidt said at the 2010 Techonomy conference, arguing that there were dangers to having complete anonymity online and that governments may eventually put an end to anonymity. "We need a [verified] name service for people," he said. "Governments will demand it."

This is the first time Schmidt has ever made an argument in favor of privacy (as far as I know).

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

What all three arguments share is that they are against freedom of the individual.

Re:Google

[ddegirmenci]

And even now, he specifically distances himself from being in favor of privacy against government.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

All of his arguments are in favor of institutional power including a blurring of government and corporate power. These same arguments are against individual human rights. He clearly feels very centered within the institution and wants to deepen the moats that protect his own actions.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the first time Schmidt has ever made an argument in favor of privacy (as far as I know).

He still hasn't made an argument in favor of privacy. He made an argument against "democrati[zing]" surveillance tools. It's still best for Corporations and Goverments to know everything you do and it's still not ok for you to know what they've done.

Re:Google

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yay, fascism.

Re:Google

[AttmMotob]

Hmm, If my neighbors could afford it, Then so could I. I would like to have that kind of money. If we want to see what is going on, look through or over the fence, Out of the windows, etc.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

who gives a fuck? We know how to google.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

motherfucking woosh.

Re:Google

[node 3]

Exactly. The biggest privacy invader in the world worries about privacy invasion only when it's done by someone else. What a creep.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you," Schmidt said at the 2010 Techonomy conference, arguing that there were dangers to having complete anonymity online and that governments may eventually put an end to anonymity. "We need a [verified] name service for people," he said. "Governments will demand it."

What was the intent of the Second Amendment?

Tyranny is the natural human condition. Six Million® cannot be wrong.

Re:Google

[gmhowell]

Go back and read the comments that are siblings to yours. The OP was making a dig at Schmidt, using his prior words against him.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Google knows you know how to Google.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit, they own the box I use to search on.

Eric Schmidt is a jerk

[ShanghaiBill]

From TFA:

How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?

While I might be creeped out by my neighbor's drone, I would be more creeped out by a government drone. Eric Schmidt is a reflex authoritrian. He has said about privacy rights: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." So it doesn't surprise me that he thinks governments should have a monopoly on spying.

I own a drone (an RC helicopter with wifi and a camera). Eric, you can take my drone when you peel the controller from my cold dead fingers.

Re:Eric Schmidt is a jerk

[wmac1]

Nice! Look how far we've gone that Eric Schmidt is defending our privacy!

How do you fill if someone looks into your email without court order Mr. Schmidt?

Re:Eric Schmidt is a jerk

[Leslie43]

From TFA:

I own a drone (an RC helicopter with wifi and a camera). Eric, you can take my drone when you peel the controller from my cold dead fingers.

People have no idea that hobbyists have been flying what amounts to home built drones for years, they would be even more shocked if they knew just how advanced they are, with many flying with complete autonomy.

Re:Eric Schmidt is a jerk

[ShanghaiBill]

People have no idea that hobbyists have been flying what amounts to home built drones for years, they would be even more shocked if they knew just how advanced they are, with many flying with complete autonomy.

My drone is not yet autonomous. But my son and I are working on integrating a Raspberry Pi, so it can autonomously fly programmed flight paths. My son is doing for his school science project, and is learning a lot about programming, Linux, electronics, batteries, etc.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilians? We need to regulate the government's use of drones so they don't become another tool in the government's mass surveillance toolkit. Civilians are the least of my concerns.

Only the rich

[PlusFiveTroll]

Only the rich should be allowed this technology. We cannot have the plebs uncovering crime, uncovering environmental disasters, showing the world how it truly is. Only large corporations and police, who are unduly influenced by large corporations should have this kind of power. Allowing this technology may result in the upset of current power structures.

--Schmidt

Re:Only the rich

[tapspace]

That's pretty much how I read it. Eric Schmidt is already the worst person in tech. He is one of the greatest threats to the American way of life, traditionally rooted in the idea that humans have many natural rights, not the least of which is privacy. He also seems to be a very real threat to the already well eroded foundation that government power is granted only by the people. I seriously hope he chokes to death, and I mean that.

Re:Only the rich

[Anonymous Coward]

"Buy Bushwood! You...?!"
--Schmidt

Re:Only the rich

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just about the thoughts of the power elite today about gun control too. How people don't see that there is a well coordinated and continuos power grab still amazes me.

Re:Only the rich

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a vile person in addition to being an idiot if you think the way technology is going to be in future can be changed by detached sentiments. Only a matter of time and by people real evil and you won't be able to tell with all PR firms propagandas, you will look back and see what a silly person you are.

Re:Only the rich

[Anonymous Coward]

AMEN.

Why Just Unmanned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to fly a jet engine over people's heads at any hour of the day, because the fliers have important places to go and things to do. And noisy helicopters, as long as there is a pilot. And Google is perfectly within its rights to photograph people in the streets, because they're in public.

More drones are the answers

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to stop a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with two drones.

Re:More drones are the answers

[eksith]

That would be a potential disaster with multiple collisions, radio jamming/frequency conflicts and stuff. These things aren't held up by magic after all.

Re:More drones are the answers

[Lehk228]

if it does not have some form of onboard AI it's not a drone it's an R/C plane

Healthy serving of FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me Mr. Schmidt should steer clear of pressing for regulation of private citizens. Just because he doesn't like the idea doesn't mean it's a good candidate for legislation.

Quiet enjoyment

[DogDude]

We already have laws to cover this or any other kind of annoyance from a neighbor. That's what civil law is in place to deal with. In the US at least, you have a right to "quiet enjoyment" of your real estate. In a situation described in the article, you sue your neighbor. No need for more laws.

Re:Quiet enjoyment

[jklovanc]

It is even simpler in that all you need to do is lodge a complaint with the local bylaw enforcement officer.

Re:Quiet enjoyment

[Anonymous Coward]

Bylaw enforcement officer? We don't have those here.

Re:Quiet enjoyment

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually we have something better. Anti-stalking laws. Depending on our state definition this includes electronic stalking. The element which might present a problem is the imminent threat requirement. I would argue that if someone is watching my house 24/7 with a drone flying next to my property/window/my personal space, there is imminent threat in the very behavior, as he could be waiting for the opportune moment and I need protection under the law to prevent stalking turing into something else. It's the same as someone using a binoculars and watching my property all the time, it's stalking. Eric Schmidt is an "legally illiterate" moron. The reporter should fact check before making this news. In this case it's the BBC. They probably pushing an agenda of the UK government which is already a nanny state with the largest network of cameras.

https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs14-stk.htm

Re:Quiet enjoyment

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use an electric RC, then there would be no noise. If it cruised the perimeter of your property you would not have a case. Not even the Queen of England could stop the publication of her kids playing on a balcony. Of Course, in the US, Better not mess with 0, or the Clintons. They could put you in a position to push up their daisies.

Re:Quiet enjoyment

[oursland]

If you use an electric RC, then there would be no noise.

Brushless motors are very loud. Moving propellers through air creates "rotor wash", which is also loud.

Target Practice

[Camel Pilot]

I would feel like I my neighbor was prohttp://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/04/13/159257/eric-schmidt-regulate-civilian-drones-now#viding me with the opportunity to practice target shooting.

Poor people shouldn't have things

[Anonymous Coward]

" He posed this hypothetical situation to The Guardian: 'You're having a dispute with your neighbor. How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?'"

The same way I'd feel if he bought a hot air balloon and some expensive camera equipment. Or used a full-size helicopter. But only rich people could afford to use such methods, so we'd better ban these cheap drones because only rich people should be able to spy on their neighbors.

He's not getting any pizza

[mattr]

But what about those guys who deliver pizza by drone? Sounds useful. Just.. there's no air traffic control. And can be used by bad guys, like most things.

Next up : Self-driving drone

[eksith]

But seriously, Google's case (or rather Eric Schmidt's case) that drones should be regulated is somewhat ironic considering monitoring is nothing new at Google. The drones in this case aren't armed (and I'm certainly not condoning arbitrary use), but the potential for "oops, we just veered off course and stumbled into your growlab" is all too easy. That's the real harm here, not that we're worried there would be any rockets taking out civilians; it's the gradual erosion of personal space.

Also drones going berserk and falling out of the sky. That's a worry too.

Re:Next up : Self-driving drone

[Anonymous Coward]

And what next? Rogue rocks falling out of the sky?

i call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

he wants drone legislation to create a barrier to entry to compete with whatever Google will be offering. realtime google maps? etc

Re:i call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly my thoughts. Glad I read the thread so I wouldn't be redundant.

Re:i call bs

[guspasho]

This was my first thought as well. Why is *Eric Schmidt* so concerned about *private* drone use, as opposed to governmental? Smells like an anti-competitive effort to me.

Re:i call bs

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd so use that service...

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

The head of Google is worried about my privacy? Now that is funny :D

Re:Seriously?

[Attila Dimedici]

The head of Google is worried about my privacy? Now that is funny :D

He's not worried about your privacy, he's worried about his privacy.

Re:Seriously?

[stenvar]

Enlightened self-interest can be a good thing, but seems hypocritical if you're the company that spies into everybody's backyard from airplanes:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=2101+Waverley+Street+Palo+Alto,+CA+94301&hl=en&ll=37.434864,-122.14041&spn=0.000567,0.000423&sll=35.101934,-108.896484&sspn=52.768214,55.458984&hnear=2101+Waverley+St,+Palo+Alto,+Santa+Clara,+California+94301&t=h&z=21

(Steve Jobs really doesn't seem to have been much of a gardner.)

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

True story,

from the offices of the people who have an unmanned car parked outside your house

automatically taking pictures, posting the images online-

and "accidentally" logging your wifi packets.

Seems legit.

The use by CIVILIANS?

[rbrander]

What about the guys who can shoot people legally? Now that American citizens have officially been declared "fair game", the rest of us foreigners, (who already lived only by continued forbearance), thought you'd finally get concerned...

I believe in self regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

As in if a nosy neighbor did that I'll regulate their behavior with a punch to the nose.

Re:I believe in self regulation

[6ULDV8]

Instead of "dude, lemme try"? I don't know about your life, but mine would be pretty boring to watch. The neighbor would lose interest and move on or fall asleep and I'd have a new toy.

They aren't interested in your life. I'm sure there are some pervs that would get off and assholes that would do it just to piss off a neighbor. Most people flying FPV do it for the VR effect. It's a real flying video game.

Enough Government

[noobermin]

Get your government off my drone.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone.

Re:Enough Government

[6ULDV8]

"If drones are outlawed, only outlaws will have drones"? Sound like another drug war. Better build some prisons quick or you'll miss all that sweet government money.

If Joe Citizen hovers over my yard with video, that's creepy and I'd have a chat with him. Most likely, he's a nerd too. If the government does it, that's scary. You can never be sure what they're up to and they're more likely to lie about it.

Re:Enough Government

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

Re:Enough Government

[sootman]

> The only thing that stops a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone.

Which means we'll have drones until the first day someone straps a gun to one and shoots up a school.

Re:Enough Government

[Myopic]

A drone society is a polite society.
Pry my drone from my cold dead hands.
This house protected by Drone & Wesson.

Re:Enough Government

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought one: (I have one a day).

What is to prevent you from putting up a drone over your own space, and using it to interfere with someone else's drone hovering over your space? Maybe 10, 20, 50 drones? (Insane cackling laugh).

In other words...

[vvaduva]

...how would anyone feel if some corporation indexes every words that comes out of your fingers, searches your emails to serve you ads and even turn them to government when they ask for it, and uses cars equipped with cameras to drive around and take pictures of your house?? What the hell? Regulate this shit...NOW!

Re:In other words...

[ScentCone]

searches your emails to serve you ads

Wow, Google is serving you ads on your own mail server? Oh, You mean they're serving you ads while you're using their huge infrastructure for free. How dare they!

some corporation indexes every words that comes out of your fingers

So you create a document and save it on your local hard disk, or send it in an email from your mail server to someone else's mail server, and Google is indexing it anyway? How? Oh, you mean words you type out and put on public display on the internet. How dare they!

Re:In other words...

[martin-boundary]

How dare they!

Literally. Google doesn't have copyright on your and my stuff, so doing anything with it, like cutting out pictures, putting web pages in cache, building language models from the words and sentences, that's technically a bunch of copyright violations. Which is a criminal offence in the US, I believe.

Copyright works like this: I have it on my stuff, and so even if *I* publish my stuff for everyone to see, everyone else is not allowed to use it or modify it except under very tight restrictions.

Re:In other words...

[andydread]

Well don't use their services then you moron. Gawd people are fucking stupid. Or maybe you are just astroturfing for Apple. Duhh.

Schmidt

[hackus]

Notice how he points out YOU shouldn't have drones, but the banking elite funding all of these wars, using your bank accounts CAN have drones, with no restrictions of course.

So, when the Banks shut down, and you decide to get mad because they stole your money, don't be surprised if you see Schmidt's cronies he hangs out with flying Military drones over your head to insure you either like the banks raping you or you don't.

Which if you do, you are a terrorist, and your fair game for the drone.

What a load of crap.

I say unregulate civilian drones, and BAN military and government drones.

-Hack

Re:Schmidt

[tapspace]

I say unregulate civilian drones, and BAN military and government drones.

-Hack

Why can't we both have drones? Rules and regulations that are proper for civilians are also proper to place upon police (since they are also civilians). Same goes for all weapons bans. We're taking away the citizenry's constitutional (that is to say natual, God-granted) right to own useful weaponry and arming our police forces to the teeth so they can shoot our compatriots' dogs and seize their property. I don't want American exceptionalism to be another failed experiment and in 100 years the world is back to having NO government where the people come first (you might argue that that's already where we are).

Re:Schmidt

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said

Re:Schmidt

[roman_mir]

I say unregulate civilian drones, and BAN military and government drones.

- finally, some sense on this fucking site.

Re:Schmidt

[VortexCortex]

s/drone/gun/

Furthermore: s/gun/technology/ in the rest of the world.

What we need is the right to bear Technology, such as drones, or encryption. No the encryption problem hasn't gone away. Look up Elliptic Curve crypto, and the BIS.

Re:Schmidt

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you do strap a gun on one, would the right to keep it be protected under the second amendment?

I spy with my Google eye...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google Chairman Eric Schmidt is urging lawmakers to regulate the use of unmanned aircraft by civilians — and quickly.

How about government regulations on the use of Google Glass by civilians?

Re:I spy with my Google eye...

[fluor2]

How about government regulations on the use of Google Glass by civilians?

I agree on this one. It's okay to film with a camera on your head but not on a radio-controlled plane?

Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

[theodp]

Mother Jones: Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

Translation

[waddgodd]

"We got all the data we need from drones, so fuck all the rest of you". cf the semi-autonomous streetview cars, satellite imagery (hey wait, a satellite's not a....D'OH), numerous other projects that we've not heard of yet

So how large is Schmidt's Place?

[nukenerd]

Sounds like he has a very large place if his neighbours need a drone to see it. Most people in the non-celebrity world have a place that is easily overlooked from neighbours' properties, so what would be the point of a drone?

Except maybe to piss you off with the noise (he talks about "all day"), but they can do that already with a lawnmower, unless, again, you have huge tracts land - your own - around you.

Re:So how large is Schmidt's Place?

[auric_dude]

Couldn't find the answer via google, so it must be ogooglebar, right?

the right to arm bears.

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy just doesn't sound like a good american.

Coming from a Google Exec?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously WTF? This reminds me of celebrities weighing in on politics.

STFU and go take photos for Street View or Google Earth you colossal fucking hypocrite.

I'm a privacy nut and I enjoy the idea of personal drones as much as I'm looking forward to Google Glass. It's the monopoly on these technologies traditionally held by the government, and the rich & powerful that I resent.

@ShanghaBill - Re:Eric Schmidt is a jerk

[nukenerd]

While I might be creeped out by my neighbor's drone, I would be more creeped out by a government drone.

I wouldn't. There is nothing nastier than disputes between neighbours can become.

Re:@ShanghaBill - Re:Eric Schmidt is a jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

A whole lotta dead Jews would beg to differ.

Re:@ShanghaBill - Re:Eric Schmidt is a jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubt it. They're dead.

Re:@ShanghaBill - Re:Eric Schmidt is a jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Those kinds of neighbors are commonly known as asshats. You cannot avoid disputes with them, they will antagonize their peers until they get a reaction. It is best to avoid living near those asshats in the first place.

Re:@ShanghaBill - Re:Eric Schmidt is a jerk

[ChrisMaple]

When was the last time a neighborhood dispute involved poison gas, trench warfare and nuclear weapons?

Re:@ShanghaBill - Re:Eric Schmidt is a jerk

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the wisdom of the ignorant. Disputes between neighbors don't even get past the ground floor of nasty.

Completely Clueless

[shawnhcorey]

Go out, buy a RC model plane and stick a cell phone on it. DIY drone. Try regulating that.

Re:Completely Clueless

[6ULDV8]

Lots of people do that, but they swap the crappy cell phone camera for something better so they can stream to a remote monitor. It's kind of cool to find your way home by looking at the property from overhead. It's also a mind fuck to watch yourself as you fly by. There's an odd sensation as you pilot around your own body while viewing from the outside.

Re:Completely Clueless

[shawnhcorey]

Yeah, I got the creepy feeling the first few times I watch real-time weather satellite images. It's strange to realize that you're looking down on yourself even tho there was no possibility of seeing yourself at that low resolution. :)

Re:Completely Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to get all high-tech on us. People have been putting cameras on kites for over 100 years.

http://activetectonics.asu.edu/kites/06eq.html

"Aerial photography was quite an art in 1906. Airplanes could barely get off the ground then, and lighter-than-air ships were expensive and cumbersome. An enterprising midwesterner, George Lawrence, devised and patented this ingenious system of kites and wires, right, that carried a 46-pound panoramic camera 800 feet into the air. It was with this arrangement that these three pictures weretaken. Lawrence and his local associate, Harry Myers, played out half a mile of line before the camera was at the proper altitude. When they were ready to shoot, they checked with binoculars to make sure the lens was lined up, and then tripped the shutter with an electrical impulse generated by an old style telephone magneto. A device within the camera then swept across a 90-degree arc to expose the image to a 22 by 55 inch negative (Oakland Tribune)"

Re:Completely Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Go out, buy a RC model plane and stick a cell phone on it. DIY drone. Try regulating that.

If they try to regulate metal tubes with handles on them, what would stop them from trying to regulate something many times more complex like a DIY drone?

Monarchy?

[b4upoo]

The notion that states or governments have some sort of legitimacy that individuals do not is wrong headed. If the government can spy on you then why can I not spy on you? And if you can be filmed from public places just where is the expectation of privacy?
                                        In all seriousness we have numerous large businesses and residences that have people on foot patrol all night. If a quiet, low flying, small device can do those patrols why would be not go that route? Large condominium complexes are one example of areas frequently patrolled at all times..
                                        What is more of a real issue is that wealthy areas now use a lot of cams and as a result are far safer. Poorer neighborhoods generally can not afford to operate such cams. Drones will be similar. Wealthy neighborhoods can easily have drone patrols. It could easily get to the point where cars that speed in the neighborhood could all be captured on drone cams and turned over for law enforcement to simply mail out the tickets. These devices can stop crime to a large degree. If the devices are armed then we could use thousands to patrol our Mexican border. People crossing illegally would simply hear a message broadcast from the drone to stay still until humans arrived to take them into custody and if they continue to move simply use force.
                                      Boats illegally fishing or dumping waste could be discovered with drones. Ranches and farms could also make great use of drones.
                                      The point being that there is simply no reason to limit the use of a wonderful, new, technology.

Re:Monarchy?

[amiga3D]

I agree. I can't wait until my new Acme 8 kiloton neighborhood nuclear device arives. I'm still shopping for a delivery system.

Re:Monarchy?

[6ULDV8]

Start shopping for batteries now. It'll take you a while to amass enough to make that practical on a budget. I'm thrilled when I can land with battery to spare after less than 10 minutes of flight. Not sure if I'd be clear of the blast radius in that amount of time. I'll probably stick to dropping eggs. Gives me an idea for my next project. A flying chicken that drops raw eggs for Easter. Or Peeps. Peeps weigh less and kids might not complain so much when one hits them.

Re:Monarchy?

[femtobyte]

Have you checked out U-Haul while shopping around? It's really easy to get delivery devices that will park your neighborhood nuke near enough to whatever target you want; no drones required. And, at $19.95 for the day rate, not likely to break your budget (though you may have trouble getting your security deposit back).

Re:Monarchy?

[Alioth]

Why use a battery powered model when you can get a turbojet engine for it? Someone built a model B-52 with 8 of them.

Re:Monarchy?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Max Weber lived to see the Holocaust, he would have all torched his work Politics As A Vocation. He died before the Munich Putsch and so we are stuck with that term that stinks of burning bodies (f--- Godwin!) "Gevaltmonopol" "monopoly on violent force".

Drones on the border carrying out Constitutional functions? - It makes too much sense.

Drones spying on the common man gives the ruling class a sense that they RULE over the common man with their security thug class called government. Like the looped image of a boot crashing down on someone's head. Nothing satisfies the lust for power when the common man is violently reminded of his station.

Re:Monarchy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought "Ryder" was the prefered brand for this application.

Maps

[afgam28]

Imagine how awful it would be if someone were to fly over people's houses, take pictures of their backyards and post them on the internet ;)

Actually the real irony here....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is his company has been doing basically the global equivalent of this for how many years with google maps satellite/street view?

Sure it's not real-time, but it's had the exact same far reaching privacy implications he's claiming against civilian drones now.

Hey Eric, you made (y)our bed, now lie in it.

Re:Actually the real irony here....

[ChrisMaple]

Isn't the satellite view public record, that google just assembled into a convenient form?

Re:Actually the real irony here....

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of it is aerial photography from about 1000 feet up, not from satellites. And I don't think NASA provides that.

Something smells like fish

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't anyone find this disconcerting in the least that gOOgLE is behind a push to limit the *civilian population* from SPYING??????

for governments, who have some legitimacy....

[NemoinSpace]

The English language is the most masterful for manipulating the thought process.
What's illegal for the people should be illegal for the government of the people.
It doesn't work that way does it?

Re:for governments, who have some legitimacy....

[WGFCrafty]

It cannot. The government is an entity founded by people, it is not a person.

Otherwise we would be raiding the treasury for, gasp, printing their own money.

Re:for governments, who have some legitimacy....

[the_saint1138]

Actually, I completely agree with the GP. What's legal for the government is legal for me, is how I see it.

That's why I've been incarcerating my neighbor Bob for the last 3 years in my basement (he "lost" my new putter that he borrowed).

Re:for governments, who have some legitimacy....

[Anonymous Coward]

you're right, it should.

as it is a government by and of the people, the people cannot grant to the government a power that they do not themselves have.

Who said this...?

[kistel]

If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear...

Meanwhile, at Eric Schmidt's mansion...

[stevegee58]

...his neighbor doesn't like him and has been flying a drone over his house all day long.

Different worries

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

It's not hypothetical, future civilian use that worries me. It's real, current military use that needs to be regulated immediately.

2nd amendment rights

[QuietLagoon]

Does the 2nd amendment give my drones the right to bear arms? Can I have armed drones patrolling my property?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It gives you the right to any weapon, armed drones included.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[chihowa]

Does the 2nd amendment give my drones the right to bear arms? Can I have armed drones patrolling my property?

If it fires without user interaction, it is probably illegal in the way a spring-gun or booby trap is. Otherwise, it's probably as legal to own as any other firearm. Actually shooting someone with it, though, is probably harder to justify. It's hard to claim self-defense if you're far away and safe behind a keyboard. (Though I could think of some legitimate scenarios, too.)

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the 2nd amendment give my drones the right to bear arms? Can I have armed drones patrolling my property?

Sure. why not?. Unlike Schmidt I think the work wouild be vastly improved by the democratization of war. There is already a strong correlation between the reduction of historical levels of violence and the development of the gun. Better wartech in everyones hands would likely to increase this further, MAD works most times and baring really nasty weapons, even the occasional slip holds its cost benefit analysis

As for the idea its understandable. Now that he is part of the elite and hobnobs with El Predisidente the idea that us sans culottes could put his business model down for the count or even decide to circulate the elites is bound to give him cold sweats, Fact is the elite are utterly without morals and completely corrupt and while they might manage to hold onto power for a while longer, sooner than later demography and economy will end them.

If they aren't whacked by some hypotethical future mob, every year the pool of supporters grows smaller. Even all the agitprop in the world can't and won't help them if no babies are being born and cyberbabies are a long ways off. If everywhere is Singapore certainly the elite are safe but in a few generations they have no one to sell too and being a few rich people, none of whom care about or trust one another in an empty land populated maninly by the highly religious is a special knd of hell.

He does have a point though, where will this end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine if people started driving down every street, taking photos of every single house and posting them publicly on the internet for all the prying eyes of the world to see. oh wait....

Drones have a lot of potential for good

[Improv]

Catching polluters, for example. We probably don't want them seeing every detail, but there's at least a useful tension between having a pair of eyes and seeing everything. I wonder if existing property laws (defining airspace above property) are enough. Might be on a state-by-state basis.

Something to hide Eric?

[Anonymous Coward]

And this comment comes from Eric if-you-want-privacy-you-have-something-to-hide Schmidt?

hammer to smash an ant

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a new problem, drones just make it easier. There is nothing stopping said neighbour from erecting a 1000' tower and installing cameras on that. If you have a Ham license they can't even stop you from putting up a tower as the right to do so by amature radio opeators is protected by law. I have personal experience with this when i put up a 100' tower for ham radio. City council tried to stop me, i whipped out my licence and my lawyer bitchslapped with effect.

empty article

[jklovanc]

What regulations does he want?
Size? Duration aloft? Areas of operation? Who can operate them? Licensing? I agree there should be regulation as I don't want heavy object falling on my head due to untrained idiot pilots.

The terrorist FUD is just stupid. How many terrorists will follow the regulations?

The neighbor scenario thing is also stupid. A similar thing can be done with a couple of 40' poles and cameras. If he wants the annoying factor of the sound then add a leaf blower. This issue is already covered by noise bylaws and invasion of privacy laws.

Drones in civilian hands are quite useful. They can be used by farmers to check crops and livestock. They can be used in search and rescue. They can be used for recreation.

Afraid of competition huh?

[ikaruga]

'...How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?'

Said the guy who sends a car to photograph my entire neighborhood and collects hi-res satellite pictures of it every 6 months or so.

Re:Afraid of competition huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you got it wrong. That was a different guy. This is the guy that wants to put videos cameras on everyone's face.

Re:Afraid of competition huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

And your wifi passwords and emails... until caught to just get a tap in the hand as punishment.

Pot, Kettle

[kfx]

It seems just a little bit comical that someone whose livelihood lies in obtaining as much information as possible about people for profit is complaining about individuals having the ability to spy on others.

2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, eric

[girlinatrainingbra]

Eric "i-google-you-but-you-cant-ogle-me" Schmidt sez "...but I would prefer to not spread and democratize the ability to fight war to every single human being"
.
Hey, have you heard of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, Eric? It specifically does what you wound not prefer: democratize the ability to fight war to every single human being in the U.S.A. by giving the people the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms allows people to have the hardware that would allow them the ability to fight war. The founding fathers, who were a hell of a lot smarter than Eric is, felt the need to enshrine that right to bear arms in writing as an amendment to the Constitution that put my country together. To quote from Animal House, I will not stand here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!!
.
Fuck you, Eric Schmidt. You want to and are currently compiling huge detailed dossiers of the activities, interests, writings, travels, telephone calls, words in telephone calls, purchasing habits, pictures of the fronts and sides (and backs too) of their houses and cars and license plates with streetview, and overhead satellite and aerial photography views from satellite photography purchased for google maps. And you have the fucking gall to say that you don't want THE PEOPLE of the USA to be able to fly and perform aerial surveillance. What a bunch of hogwash. I wish you would go back to work rather than trying to buy laws that you want passed (like allowing self-driving cars, don't tell me you didn't pay someone off in Nevada to get that passed so quickly, eh?).

we feel exactly the same as...

[Anonymous Coward]

Schmidt says: "How would you feel about it?"

I feel exactly the same as I do about Google snooping and recording all of everyone's online activity, running tracker scripts on almost every goddamn web page on the net, sending vans around to photograph everyone's houses, and so on.

We feel JUST LIKE THAT, Eric.

Eric Schmidt: shut up and talk to your lawyer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I stalk you with a drone? That's Schmidt's basic question. Depends on the state definition of stalking. If as he says drones stalk you 24/7, most state laws already view that as criminal activity.

He goes off on a tangent without any legal analysis. He should either talk to his lawyer of stop giving out opinions for possibly non-existant problems. If he after studying the anti-stalking laws of 50 states finds they don't have the protection against merely observing someone using a drone or a totem pole with a camera he should voice his concerns on the definition in the states where such protection is not present.

And Eric Schmidt you are a closet pseudo-communist.

https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs14-stk.htm

1. What Is Stalking?

Stalking refers to harassing or threatening behavior that is engaged in repeatedly. Such harassment can be either physical stalking or cyberstalking.

Physical stalking is following someone, appearing at a person’s home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing one’s property.
Cyberstalking involves using the Internet or other electronic means to harass.
Either type of action may or may not be accompanied by a credible threat of serious harm. But both types can cause psychological damage, and each can potentially lead to an assault or even murder.

All states have anti-stalking laws, but the legal definitions vary. Some state laws require that the perpetrator, to qualify as a stalker, make a credible threat of violence against the victim. Others require only that the stalker’s conduct constitute an implied threat.

completely illegal

[skyraker]

Such an act as described by Mr. Schmidt is against the law. Obtaining a drone doesn't mean one can perform illegal surveilances on you. And why in the hell would my neighbor spend tens of thousands of dollars on a drone just to do so? To embarass me? Yes, drone use needs to be regulated, but let's not jump to using very poor examples.

legitimacy

[thrillseeker]

it's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it ... it's not going to happen

Well Mr. Schmidt - from where do you think governments derive their legitimacy?

Re:legitimacy

[VortexCortex]

it's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it ... it's not going to happen

Well Mr. Schmidt - from where do you think governments derive their legitimacy?

Rich financiers, apparently.

Re:legitimacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple fact is that he made something of himself and he fears that which can take his toys away from him and that which can take him away from his toys. This will of necessity step on many toes here on /., but he thinks that there is no one out there who can put him in his place.

Someone will have to prove otherwise that he believes that said legitimacy comes from people of his station and none below. This humanoid sounds like Georgia
Guidestones material. We ALL know that these people do not have some modicum of genocidal desire in them, right?

Asymmetric surveillance is wrong.

[DamnStupidElf]

And when the government comes for the undesirable neighbors (currently the poor "drug abusing" minorities and people of middle-eastern descent), no one will be able to see the police brutality and rights violations! Everyone wins!

I honestly can't think of any detriment to having neighbors with spy drones. They send spy drones onto my property? I'll send my own drones to track theirs and watch them watching me. If it's amusing enough I'll probably document the whole thing on a public website. Privacy is *dead*. Privacy was not one of the features of our ancestral environments. Tolerance and acceptance are the way to deal with each other, not hiding.

Re:Asymmetric surveillance is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

They send spy drones onto my property? I'll send my own drones to track theirs and watch them watching me.

All right! Drone dogfights! This decade is going to be awesome.

Privacy is *dead*. Privacy was not one of the features of our ancestral environments.

Well, yeah, but be fair - living densely packed in big cities near people you don't know is also not a feature of our ancestral environments.

enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up cispa whore

Slimy piece of shit opens mouth, turd falls out...

[Johann Lau]

.... news at 11.

Google Neighborview?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could there be the wish for another privacy intrusion monopoly - but, well: don't think evil.

one might ask...

[argStyopa]

Not saying that we're there yet, but one might extrapolate not inconceivably far into the future to ask about the essential and theoretical foundations which grant this so-called 'legitimacy' to a state that somehow outranks the individual. What is it that a state "has" that an individual doesn't, and could we conceive of a society in which the state doesn't have any sort of primacy over the individual?

It speaks to the essential nature of the social contract, and the state born therefrom (of course this assumes that the power of the state flows FROM the the citizen, and not the other way around); but in an era where there are fewer and fewer intrinsic bottlenecks on the movement, communication, and power of citizens - for example, we're not THAT far away (50 years? 100 years?) from an era in which people could credibly create their own nuclear or bioweapons. What happens to the concepts of WMD "proliferation" when the technology, energy, and intellectual resources are ubiquitous?

It's worth mentioning that I see this in the roots of the 2nd Amendment discussions in the US as well: the martial power available to a citizen in, say, a fully-automatic weapon is almost inconceivably more than the Founding Fathers imagined a single individual having. Does this mean that the Amendment should be nullified, or (as we have today) that we acquiesce to incrementally circumscribing what is an otherwise pretty categorical and straightforward prohibition on ANY such limitation?

It's of course a smaller issue, but I see the powers available to UAVs another camel-nose-under-the-tent of personal capability to do something formerly reserved to government. I do NOT believe that blanket prohibition is in any way feasible or practicable over the long term - genies don't go back into bottles willingly.

Re:one might ask...

[PlusFiveTroll]

I wouldn't worry about nuclear. By the time it becomes easy for a home user to build it, it's just as likely our cell phones will be decent radiological detectors. BEEP BEEP: Your neighbor is building a nuke, should I organize the neighbors to prevent a holocaust?

I don't see a fully automatic weapon inconceivably more powerful then a cannon loaded with grape-shot. Either one fired in to a crowd is going to make a mess. It would probably be more of a surprise that people could go on rampages without some other armed citizen shooting them quickly.

Re:one might ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

In such a future, fascism would not only be required, it would be the only way for humanity to live in peace. I certainly wouldn't want any nut to have access to WMDs, no matter how "democratic" it would "feel".

I suspect the authorities sees where we're heading, and also that future shortages and environmental damages would cause chaos, so they are preparing.

Captcha: leftist ;-)

Re:one might ask...

[0123456]

It's worth mentioning that I see this in the roots of the 2nd Amendment discussions in the US as well: the martial power available to a citizen in, say, a fully-automatic weapon is almost inconceivably more than the Founding Fathers imagined a single individual having.

At the time of the founding, individuals owned artillery and the Constitution implicitly assumes the existence of private warships.

The idea that they'd freak out at the idea of someone owning a fully-automatic assault rifle is utter nonsense.

OMG LOL

[sootman]

"I would prefer to not spread and democratize the ability to fight war to every single human being. It's got to be regulated... It's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it..." [emphasis mine]

I stopped reading right there. Not because I disagree, but because I was laughing too hard. What the fuck planet does this guy come from/live on?

How would I feel about it?

[jtownatpunk.net]

Full disclosure: I barely skimmed the summary and only read 2 or 3 comments. I certainly didn't read any linked articles.

You're having a dispute with your neighbor. How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?

I'd feel annoyed about it. And there are already laws on the books I can use to deal with that situation. If my neighbor was doing that, s/he would be interfering with my quiet enjoyment of my home and property. I document it and call the cops. If the neighbor keeps it up, we'll end up in court and the judge will order him to knock it the hell off. If the neighbor still keeps it up, contempt of court and whatever.

My point is that it's already illegal for a neighbor (or non-neighbor) to harass me, regardless of the method of harassment. We don't need a new law for this scenario.

Re:How would I feel about it?

[erroneus]

Perfectly said. The new law would be to reduce what people can do to business and government. We can't let "the people" know what we are doing now can we?

The Right To Bear Arms

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing can be done about it. The US constitution prevents Congress from interfering.

Re:The Right To Bear Arms

[jfdavis668]

Forget guns. I'm going for Surface to Air missiles.

What's the magic word?

[wonkey_monkey]

Eric Schmidt: Regulate Civilian Drones Now...

...please. Jeez, no-one has any manners these days.

Regulate Video Cameras Now!

[FuzzNugget]

"You're having a dispute with your neighbor. How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial video camera that they can point in your general direction from their backyard? It just watches your house all day. How would you feel about it? ... I'm not going to pass judgment on whether constant surveillance should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratize the ability to record video to every single human being. It's got to be regulated... It's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it... it's not going to happen."

Re:Regulate Video Cameras Now!

[PNutts]

A buddy at work was having problems with his neighbor and did just that.

Re:Regulate Video Cameras Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Observation like that's very much illegal in many places and if the drone produces noise, the call for the police goes for the caused disturbance. Technical surveillance targeting somebody else's home is something only police has right to do in my country, and even then according to precise regulations and the law. Surely the US has some laws against stalking and home invasion. Wonder why Schmidt is concerned about this. If every single special case has to be separately regulated in the US, you'll soon find yourselves in 18th century Prussia.

While they're at it ...

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

... how about banning self-driving cars with camera pods, too?

Too much control.

[Anonymous Coward]

So now we are expected to create laws on hypotheticals?! If we are going this route, lets disband the military for fear that we are headed to a dictatorship or a stratocracy. By eliminating the exploration of opportunity we are eliminating the opportunity for innovation. If you fly a drone over your neighbors house there are already plenty of laws in place to deal with the invasion of privacy. If a terrorist flys a uav in front of a passenger get, there are already laws for Criminal negligence or attempted murder or tresspass. Making new laws and continuing to jam our legislative system with specialized yet redundant crud won't prevent people from doing stupid or dangerous stuff. If it did we wouldn't need the judicial system.

Gasp! (grasping pearls!)

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporate paymaster afraid of a populace being able to implement some transparency on their own? Well, I never!

legitimacy is a myth perperated by the powerful

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "legitimacy". There is only men with weapons or followers(power) who will harm you if you do anything that catches their attention. That is the way things have been since our social structures were first created.

Until the concept of weak and powerful people is eradicated we will forever have tyranny.

Who does he think he is?

[frootcakeuk]

Who the fuck is Eric Shmidt to say whether or not we should be allowed to have civilian drones? What could it possibly have to do with him?? I bet he has an army of these things doing his bidding. Prick.

I'd feel like practicing target shooting

[Anonymous Coward]

Bird shot or even rock salt should take out a civilian drone easily, and won't harm anybody on the ground when it falls back to earth... The drone falling out of the sky might be more harmful.

I'd also feel like mooning the sky and suing the neighbor for invasion of privacy, and any number of other things.

Anti-civilian drone law isn't about hobbyists

[erroneus]

More than once, we saw stories right here on Slashdot about how a drone was used to observe businesses. In at least one case, it lead to the EPA taking action against one of the companies.

It's not hobbyists and bad neighbors they are seeking to protect, it's polluters and other criminals.

More and more the ability to record information is reserved only for government and the rich and powerful. Why is that? Why is it that the same people who are "anti-gun" walk around so often with guns themselves?

Re:Anti-civilian drone law isn't about hobbyists

[Z00L00K]

I agree - it cuts both ways with the use of drones.

  - Nothing says that governmental use of drones is safe or not an invasion of privacy.
  - Nothing says that private use of drones is unsafe or an invasion of privacy.

In the end it's a human behind the controls. And from another perspective - if the government starts to watch you I would be a lot more worried than if a neighbor was. If you feel that your neighbor is spying on you then either you already have a problem or the neighbor is the problem of the neighborhood.

I can think of legal uses for private drones too - especially if you have a large property like a farm and want to keep track of where your sheep are (or whatever).

Re:Anti-civilian drone law isn't about hobbyists

[erroneus]

Personally, I just want to make some cool videos with one. Reminds me of the time I put a wireless camera on an RC car and saw on a big screen how "I was attacked by a giant jack russell terrier!"

"Regulate Civilian Drones Now"

[John Hasler]

"So we can arrange for Google to be among the few licensed to use them".

Google Earth 2.0

[biodata]

Google Earth will go realtime with drones cited above everyone's house. Please pass relevant legislation kbyethx

Re:Google Earth 2.0

[GameboyRMH]

Google Earth already uses drones for aerial photography.

Slowing down competition for googlecar

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that he's really trying to get governments into legislating regulations by which he can google cars on the books as drones, and control development by small competition.

Who is Schmidt considering?

[PopeRatzo]

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt is urging lawmakers to regulate the use of unmanned aircraft by civilians â" and quickly. He posed this hypothetical situation to The Guardian: 'You're having a dispute with your neighbor. How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?' Schmidt went on to bring up military and terrorist concerns.

This story is going to go quiet very quickly. Because "civilian" includes Google (at least for the time being).

Commercial drones are going to be very popular with the job creators.

What a TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

"...but I would prefer to not spread and democratize the ability to fight war to every single human being." WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING FOR 100000 YEARS THEN??!
This shmit dude is trolling hard. The "Governments have legitimacy" part gives it away.

His example is already illegal

[bugnuts]

You have the right to be free from that annoyance. Any drones that flew over your house would have to be over 500 feet (depending on area, might be more) in public airspace, or be a very temporary disturbance.

Hovering for long periods below 500 feet or above but impinging on your right to enjoy your property is illegal.

"Drones", or UAVs, or UASs, better known as "Radio control planes" have been quite legal for decades. He's trying to make a big deal of it only because it's going to be legal for commercial entities instead of just hobbyists to use. Your neighbor already can hover over your house, so there's no impending emergency to enact legislation as he is implying.

Google Glass is a far worse threat, and I fear he may be making a "Look over there!" argument to distract from the horrible invasions of privacy that will be happening in a few years due to Eric Schmidt himself.

Google glasses?

[Pascal Sartoretti]

For once, I totally agree with him. By the way, there is the same issue with google glasses. Only worse.

Government needs more regulation than civilians

[lilfields]

"It's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it... it's not going to happen." So we shouldn't regulate government drones?...Because they are legitimate? What the fu...I'm for regulating drones in terms of privacy for civilians, like TMZ shouldn't be able to fly a drone over Brad Pitt's house...but I also think government should face even tighter regulations. Replacing a police helicopter is fine, spying on civilians is not fine, arming drones over U.S. soil, is not fine, etc. I'm far far more worried about what the government is doing with drones than a civilian.

Re:2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, e

[Anonymous Coward]

democratize the ability to fight war to every single human being in the U.S.A. by giving the people the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms allows people to have the hardware that would allow them the ability to fight war.

You really are shortsighted. War is not fought today at the physical level but at the economic level, strangling whole countries and enslaving people with debt.

Wait, Eric Schmidt said that?

[seebs]

Well, Eric:

If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Some guy said that.

Schmidt has double standards on privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything Schmidt does at Google is devoted to destroying user privacy, yet when it comes to his own privacy, he doesn't want the masses to observe his private life using drones. The contrast couldn't be more vivid.

His comment that "it's OK for government to observe" is a poorly veiled "it's OK for the rich to observe", because government in the US is entirely under the control of the rich through the legalized bribery of "campaign contributions". And Google doesn't even try to hide its gluttony for observing everything, so "it's OK for corporations to observe" is implicit in his words. It's just not OK for you and me to do so.

This man really is one of the most morally corrupt people at the helm of technology giants today.

Nothing New - Hot Air Balloons

[Anonymous Coward]

You could already do this by attaching to your house, a small hot air balloon containing a camera (watch out for lighting strikes). That's even worse from the neighbors point of view because it's completely within the other's land area. A kite could also work, but in a more limited fashion

Why do people get so upset when electronics get involved? Nevermind, it's simply someone trying to prevent others from having the same abilities as him. Greedy bastard.

Cheap Throwaway Drones

[Baby Duck]

Drones need to be cheap enough where it won't matter if it's illegal and it gets confiscated or destroyed. The aerial surveillance was transmitted in real time and bounced through a labyrinth of anonymizing routers. The drone was homebrewed, so all identifying serial numbers in parts and values in ROM were defaced. The physical drone cannot be traced back to the operator. Trying to triangulate the flight-operating signal will just add to the amount of time the operator can capture data before abandoning it. If the flight path was pre-programmed and then erased when it reached its destination, there may not even be a signal to triangulate.

That data is the prize, NOT the sustainability or reuse of the drone. It is fodder for the cause. It's cheap enough to just build another one. All the lobbying, regulation, and criminalizing in the world will not deter determined individuals from exposing wrongdoing.

"drones"

[Luckyo]

Human powered civilian surveillance drones known as "glass wearers" on the other hand should be completely legal. Unless they hack their glasses not to report back to google.

Do No Evil.

The reason he cares

[thetoadwarrior]

He doesn't want his wife buying a drone and finding him banging something other than her yet again.

If he thinks privacy is dead then accept it when your neighbhour flies his drown over your house. What do you have to hide anyway? We already know you lack morals anyway you beady-eyed twat.

Already Illegal In Some Places

[Jane Q. Public]

Some states have already passed laws against drone use by civilians OR government. The more enlightened versions limit the ban to drones used for "surveillance".

Other states -- I know of at least one example -- have privacy laws such that although drones are not specifically mentioned, if used for surveillance they would be in violation of the existing law.

Fuck Eric Schmidt

[Anonymous Coward]

His opinion matters to me less than the last turd
I flushed.

The best thing that can happen to Eric Schmidt
is for him to get terminal cancer and shut the fuck up.

Automated Megalomania

[Anonymous Coward]

Schmidt's concern's are less worrisome than the idea of having an army of mindless automaton's at the beckon call of the few, or, even worse, the one! Currently, our armies are made of individuals with at least some compassion for other people and their fellow folk. That means our armies have the sense to know when they should follow orders and when not. What happens if somehow, through some loophole, somebody got full control of a full blown army of robots? I know if I had myself a robot army, I'd have some fun.

Hypocrit

[DaveDerrick]

I'd be more worried about cars driving past my house taking photos & snooping private data from my wifi. Oh wait.......its only Google so its OK.

Personal drones to ensure "legitimacy" of Govt.?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if we allow personal drones to ensure that the government "legitimacy" Schimdt assumes is actually true?

We live in days when civilians are subject to arrest, possibly with additional beatings, for recording police actions. Having an "eye in the sky" might be safer than having the audacity to record government employees from your own front yard.

Regulation to protect him, harm others.

[sethstorm]

He just wants to pre-empt the detection of any wrong-doing that he would commit and would be detected by drones - since it opens up opportunities where their usual countermeasures (walls, etc.) would not work.

Google has been secretly filming my house

[Anonymous Coward]

From the air and from the outside. And now the evil company is making money by showing those pictures online to anyone... Even to that "neighbour" Smidth pretends he want to protect me from. If google first deletes all its own aerial and street view photos then i might start to believe Smidth is concerned about someone's provacy.

As long as corporations are banned too.

[Anonymous Coward]

By civilians he means "individual people without huge amounts of cash" so in his world Google can have a drone fleet but I can't unless I register as a corporation and win the lottery in order to pay for the license.

Aaarrrggghhh

[TRRosen]

Quit using the term DRONES. To quote Mr Montoya ' it does not mean what you think it means'. Drones mostly do not exist outside the lab and are illegal to fly in the US. UAV's are just planes where the pilot isn't inside it. However the pilot is in control and as such a UAV should be legally considered an extension of the user. If the UAV trespasses the user trespasses. Flying over your neighbors house is illegal for the most part. Flying above your house to get a good view of his...well its no different then standing on a ladder, your roof or some other platform. Should we ban windows more the 20ft above the ground.

Analogy for trees growing over property?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's well-established precedent that if a tree branch grows from your neighbour's yard across into yours, you have the right to saw it off even though it is only "floating" in the airspace above your property. If their drone did the same kind of thing by hovering low over a neighbour's property, I suspect it would play out similarly (i.e. you have a right to take action against the intrusion into your space). If it was hovering much higher in airspace that is clearly public, you run into other limits in terms of what the pilot can do with RC aircraft without a license. And if it was noisy, you could call the police about the disturbance. Existing laws cover most of this stuff.

On the other hand, if you mount a fixed camera on top of a pole in your yard and point it over the fence at your neighbour's yard, too fricking bad unless you're peering into unquestionably private spaces such as the interior of their house. You don't own the photons bouncing off your property and into other public or private spaces, and the standard solution if you want to prevent other people from collecting those photons is to obstruct them with something opaque (i.e. a high fence or drapes).

Re:Analogy for trees growing over property?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not similar at all. An aircraft operating above the ground falls under the sole regulatory scope of the Federal Aviation Administration. States cannot regulate what flies in the air.

Agreed, DO NOT REGULATE !!

[Weezul]

Jeez, Schmidt is really one to talk about private organizations spying. It's almost as if he wants a wall of regulation that prevents others from fully exploiting computerized cameras.

You know, OpenStreetMaps already creams Google Maps' data. Just like wikipedia creams Quara, etc. I'm serious, if I pull up any random locate street, I'll find much better information on OpenStreetMaps. Can anyone say Open Street View?

Re:Agreed, DO NOT REGULATE !!

[beelsebob]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this –he's just trying to guarantee that the competitors can't manage to match street view, or beat their areal imagery. I'd bet heavily that he's most concerned about apple flying drones over cities to build up their 3D flyover data.

Let me get this straight...

[BLKMGK]

An entire hobby needs to be regulated and monitored because ZOMG someone might fly a "drone" over someone else's house? Never mind that the person doing this would almost certainly be violating existing laws on the books, we need new laws like NOW! Why in this world does anyone listen to this idiot?

The public already worries enough about "drones" somehow peeping into windows and it's ridiculous. Gee, a device that sounds like a small lawnmower and has a loiter time measured in a handful of minutes might manage to hover outside my window? With my shades open I presume? I need to freakout over this why?

I for one am THRILLED to see RC aircraft undergoing a resurgence! Get kids away from their game consoles and out building and experimenting with this stuff, hell adults too. I want to build one of these, I will build one of these! I will take pictures of my local park, I will use it to examine my roof, maybe I'll even setup a video feed to fly it with. But somehow because a small minority might get stupid we need to jump up and down waving our hands in the air? NO! A thousand times NO.

What exactly is this moron worried about? It's not like we don't already have cars driving around snapping pics and satellite's too. Commercial planes have been doing this for ages as well and people have found plenty of good uses for the technology. Why does THIS need to be regulated? We already screwed over the model rocket guys, why are we looking to hose the RC guys too?

Hey Eric, suppose someone puts a camera on an RC CAR and drives it into your yard? What then? Do we need a law for that too? Idiot...

really?

[Anonymous Coward]

cool strawman, sis!

News at $11,000

[Anonymous Coward]

TLDR

Privacy should be a purchasable right, not an inherent one.

unebelivable

[Anonymous Coward]

this from the guy pushing google glass...

Say What?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Talk about hypocrisy.

Comment from an RC pilot

[melting_clock]

People are getting worked up over nothing. I fly radio controlled aircraft with cameras attached to record the flight and stream live video. There is no way of avoid this falling in to the definition of a "drone". My interest was in getting video from a different perspective. I fly in public areas, well away from people, and never over private property, without permission. I have absolutely no interest in invading the privacy of others and prefer that no people appear in my videos at all. I fly responsibly, avoiding any risk to other people or their property. Sadly, I constantly see claims that private drones are evil and only used to spy on people. There are very few real world examples to support those tinfoil hat attitudes... There are far easier ways to spy on people. Placing remote cameras and audio equipment is simple enough - very small, easily hidden and sold to anyone. SLR cameras with high magnification lenses is a very common way of invading the privacy of others, look at all of those trash magazines for proof. Smart phone cameras are regularly used for invading the privacy of others. Private and government security cameras constantly monitor larger areas. There are many examples of actual invasions of privacy that have nothing to do with drones. As a final note, I live in Australia where drones are highly regulated and the use for any commercial purpose requires licensed pilots with approved equipment. Someone selling pictures they took with their hobby drone would find themselves in some serious trouble if the regulators found out...

Drones Will Soon be Google's New Agents

[Anonymous Coward]

This is AC so will, accordingly, never be read, however I must say -- ahead of the coming announcement -- that Google will soon be employing drones (most likely a quadrotor based platform) to collect data in much the same way the Streetview cars were used. They will be used for indoor mapping and refining positioning capabilities by simultaneously mapping/photographing and warflying for data on all local radio interfaces. This is just Schmidt getting out ahead of the of the probable backlash when the project is finally unveiled.

"Only I should be allowed to spy"

[Culture20]

"I'm rich. Only I should be allowed to spy on them with camera cars, satellite imagery, photos from airplanes, and tracking everything they do on the web."

He should remind himself about his own wisdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

This is coming from the guy that said "if you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear". Why is he so worried all of a sudden? Is he trying to hide something in his back yard?

drones aren't the issue

[buybuydandavis]

Sensors are. You hardly need a drone flying over your neighbor's house to spy on your neighbor.

Maybe Schmidt has a jillion acres, so you need to fly to get close enough for the sensor to work, but for 99%, a camera on your roof under the eaves of your roof is more than enough.

Crony Capitalist hugs Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

So... a giant corporation (which can afford the lobbyists to put in all the loopholes needed so it can do what it wants) calls on government to regulate an entire area of tech so no new upstart company can move into it... and a giant nanny-state/security-state government will be all-too-happy to do it.... nothing new here other than the increasing stupidity of of the voting population that is letting its freedoms and opportunities slip away.

The Obama administration has been using a very toxic argument in the gun control arena and too many of their stupid supporters have been happily going along with it: "nobody needs an assault weapon" and "why do you need more than X number of rounds in a magazine?". Apparently they think that your constitutional rights are limited to the subset of them that you can prove you "need". This is a fundamentally anti-American concept, but the poorly educated useful idiots being pumped-out by our unionized schools do not seem to know any better. The new question big brother will ask will be "why do you need that quadcopter?" or "why does anybody need a model airplane?" They will declare that nobody needs a flying gadget that can take pictures... and they will imply that individuals with such gadgets can only want them for nefarious purposes (like spying on people, scouting crime scenes, looking for little kids to molest, etc). They will hyperventilate over the hazards average people are exposed to by these unregulated hobbyists ("airliners full of mommies and children will fall from the skies!" and "your lecherous neighbor will peek in your windows!") with no actual evidence... but it will scare a lot of "soccer moms". If you really want aerial pictures, they'll re-assure you, you can just buy them from GoogleHover(future trademark) with much less hassle; if you wanted to create a new model and build a business on it, forget about it... as an upstart you will not be able to figure out the rules and/or be able to afford to bribe the right officials.... just sell the design to google at the price google specifies and they will pay their lawmakers to get it approved so they can operate it. Don't worry... the pictures you buy from Google will be cheap (either in cash, or in lost privacy and exposure to advertisers) and you can trust them not to mis-use the pics in any way... any way... any way....

Re:2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, e

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are shortsighted. War is not fought today at the physical level but at the economic level, strangling whole countries and enslaving people with debt.

And we did a good job of strangling our own country's economy since 2007 when the media started telling us "The economy will go sour soon. Stop buying stuff. Hoard your money." The housing market would have been a self-contained blip if everyone had just continued with normal business practices.

Contrary to the barage of stupid slashdot comments

[Anonymous Coward]

He is actually correct.
In Australia, I could well imagine pimply faced teens patrolling the burbs for nude backyard sunbaking / tit shots.

Corporation vs. Government

[Roger W Moore]

Corporation gets out of control, "BUY THIS BUY THIS BUY THIS!" Government gets out of control, loss of privacy, freedom. Death.

That depends on the corporation and whether they act in concert with other corporations. For example it is quite easy to imagine corporations causing a loss of privacy: tracking cookies, selling consumer habits, lack boxes in cars etc. Loss of freedom is admittedly restricted to particular freedoms: secure EFI, DVD region locks, DRM etc. Death is rarer still but not unheard of: pollution, unsafe devices and substances e.g. asbestos, Bhopal etc.

So don't kid yourself: out of control corporations could be just as bad as an out of control government. The only reason they tend not to be is that corporations can be brought to account by government before they get completely out of control whereas an out of control government is far harder to bring to account.

Re:Corporation vs. Government

[Anonymous Coward]

I would wager that an out of control corporation is even worse than an out of control government. Corporations exist solely to make as much profit as possible, at ANY expense. If it were legal to beat people and steal their money, there would be a fiercely competitive market of corporations with hitmen to ensure not a single person had a dime on the streets, and we all know that is not an exaggeration at all. Government CAN do that, but the government is also subject to the will of it's people (the will of the people is another matter entirely), and ultimately answers to the people. Corporations answer only to the profits, to make sure all of their resources grow as quickly as possible regardless of the expense on anyone else. Corporate leadership is 100% of the time willing to lie directly to your face to get the proper response from you, then completely about face and take the money and run. In fact the only time a corporation will not do this is when it is more profitable not to. Government ensures that it is generally more profitable not to, for the moment.

If we get anymore protection acts slipped into bills, we can surely expect all that to change.

True, but

[Anonymous Coward]

All the pioneering and innovation in aviation came before the FAA existed. Before the FAA (and the predecessor CAA), anybody could build and fly any plane he could imagine. A young man like Lindbergh could trade a motorcycle and a few bucks for a plane. A young middle-class fellow like Neil Armstrong could get a part time job and pay for a few flying lessons to become a pilot before graduating from highschool, and so-on. Sure, a few people were killed in their flying machines (and today, many are killed using drugs, or in their mass-produced cars, or mass-produced motorcycles, etc... so it's not reallynecessarily a net improvement) but everybody was far more free. The FAA has managed to keep non-airline civil aviation from growing significantly for decades as it performed its role of protecting and regulating the big airlines. If YOU decide to design and build a plane, the FAA will be all-over you (they'll just be there to keep you safe, of course) but if you are a huge corporation in bed with the government (like Boeing or Airbus) the FAA will let you self-monitor, self-regulate and self-certify much of the design and manufacturing; they'll sign-off the reams of paper your army of paper-pushers hand them and they'll go through the motions of letting you pay them lots of money to sit-in on meetings and observe test flights (and as a big corp, you can afford this and will enjoy the legal protections this buys you later in post-accident lawsuits).

The FAA should have been eliminated decades ago. All that is needed is a very basic set of rules for what types of vehicles may be operated at what altitudes and at what distances from various types of airfields... anything more just becomes bribe-able lobby-able tools of crony capitalism.

Mineral Rights versus Property Rights

[CuteSteveJobs]

That is right. Mineral Rights are assigned separately by the government, over lunch in 'corrupt' deals to your political mates.

Coal licences: ‘corrupt’ deal worth $100m
http://www.afr.com/p/national/coal_licences_corrupt_deal_worth_5N2rJf47NdL2yQJuDxmmkJ

Obeid family and friends reap millions from lucrative coal licenses
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/obeid-family-and-friends-reap-millions-from-lucrative-coal-licences-20120520-1yz31.html

Pot Kettle Black

[CuteSteveJobs]

> His agenda is he wants to prevent paparazzi and other civilians from being able spy on their targets from above. ,

I think you are right. Google is terrible with our privacy, now suddenly he cares about ours? I call self-interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google#Privacy
http://digitaljournal.com/article/318518 "Google faces criticism as it reveals new privacy policy"

Wouldn't care if it stayed QUIET

[johnwerneken]

Anyway, Governments have no more right to zap people than I do; both might decide to, and go do it, but neither has such a right.

Therefore, if the untrustworthy folks in Washington, DC, Tehran, and Pyonyang (the three leading terrorists although China and Russia are in the game too) have such arms, we should too.

I would feel like my neighbour was Google.

[fox171171]

How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?

I would feel like my neighbour was Google.

Not Going To Happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Mayor of every city in the U.S.A. is 'masturbating' to get his very own personal drone to do the killing that he was not born with a backbone to do.

This is how Obama captures the U.S.A. to do his dirty business, killing Americans.

ban'em all

[NikeHerc]

How about we ban all drones in the U.S., irrespective of who is flying them? How about we quadruple the penalties for anyone in any government agency who is caught operating drones? If we don't stop this now, there will be no end of drones.

Do we really want a weaponized police state in this country?

He's worried about crowdsourced imagery, IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that hypocritical^H^H^H I mean ironic, coming from the pusher of Google Glass?

Clearly it's not the drones, it's the fact they contain cameras. Google stands to lose its near monopoly on imagery. Given a few years and some technical advances, crowdsourced drone cam imagery can potentially accomplish what Google has spent billions to achieve.

So if we're going to regulate drone cams, I think that is fine AS LONG AS we ban them for law enforcement too!

While we're at it, we should ban eyeglass cams and likely car cams as well - especially any with the proven audacity to drive around airsnorting WiFi channels.

It would be about time.

Drone War

[Anonymous Coward]

I will fly my own drone and have a drone war with the neighbor.. I used to have kite fights in my childhood :)

Google squelching competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they already have satellite images of your backyard, is this just a gambit to ensure that nobody else can?

Trayvon Martin?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin?

Follow, shoot, claim 'bad guy'?

3000 Dead (maybe 4) since the last school massacre, and still we get astoturfers for the NRA here.

legitimate governments

[Anonymous Coward]

"... governments... some legitimacy."

Some is overstating the case.

Small radio 'copter buzzed me driving....

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago around dusk I was driving down an urban a street I drive on almost daily. It is a lightly or a bit more traveled street. Suddenly I'm startled and swerve to avoid hitting...something???...that swooped 3 or 8 feet over the front of my windshield? What the? I glance back and see a remote controlled helicopter, about 2 feet or a little more in length, hovering over a yard about 10 feet off the ground across the street from where I was buzzed. If there had been oncoming traffic or parked cars nearby there is a small chance this could have caused an accident. I think, not sure, the person controlling it was not trying to buzz me on purpose, but saw me coming and thoughts, "Oops, let bring this baby back home."

In other words, Yahoos (I thought we were talking about Google?) already have them. One purpose of laws and regulations is to constrain activities that cause. Few of our rights are absolute, including the right bear arms, See District of Columbia vs. Heller, where the Supreme Court explicitly stated "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." And of course, you can't hollar fire in a theater, unless there is a fire. I don't know if you can hollar "geek" at a /. convention.

====
Meanwhile, science fiction still hasn't caught up. In the future Star Trek types and police types will send in tiny drones to see what is in the cave/ compound / derelict space-craft, saving the lives of many redshirts.

 

Three words

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Eric Schmidt

What a change for Eric Schmidt

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Mr. Schmidt wants to stop an hypothetical neighbour flying a commercial observation drone over your house. What a change from the time it answered the concerns of people who didn't like their yard to be exposed on Street View by just suggesting them to move.-Ignacio Agulló

Civilian vs The State

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the premise that my expectation of privacy depends on who is on the other side of the drone? Either I have an expectation of privacy or I don't. Regardless of the operator.

  Also, if someone is stalking me, aren't they stalking me regardless of the technology they use to do it? Police, politician or lunatic, shouldn't they all need a court order to stalk someone?

No new law needed

[Anonymous Coward]

There are already laws about where you can fly your toy plane. These laws cover "private drones" as well - for a drone is just a good toy plane with some observation equipment on it. Particularly, you need the land owners permission to fly over their property. which makes sense - toy planes crash occationally, and could damage property that way.

Most places also have laws about surveillance cameras. Usually, aiming a surveilance camera at your neighbours property is not ok. As such, it does not matter if the camera is mounted on a drone or a pole.

Nuclear future

[stoploss]

we're not THAT far away (50 years? 100 years?) from an era in which people could credibly create their own nuclear or bioweapons.

I'm sure that in 2143 plutonium is available in every corner drug store, but here in 2113 it's a little hard to to come by...

Silly Schmidt

[Anonymous Coward]

First he thinks he can fix North Korea and now this. Give it up, you don't have as much power as you think you do.

Your airspace is already private...

[Anonymous Coward]

(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights )

United States
In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Typically, in the "Uncontrolled" category of airspace, any pilot can fly any aircraft as low as he or she wants, subject to the requirement of maintaining a 500-foot (150 m) distance from people and man-made structures except for purposes of takeoff and landing, and not causing any hazard.

This would generally suggest that your neighbor ain't going to be able to buzz your house without contriving a VTOL flight-path, and since most people in the bay area (that aren't CEO's) don't have 150m between their neighbors, I read this as "rich peoples problems".

We already have laws which can serve.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a Legitimate concern, but using a statist or overkill response. We already have laws which regulate harassment and assault with deadly weapons. We don't need special regs to cover "assault with drones" or "harassment with flying toys" and the like. At least, we don't until some court rules otherwise.

The real concern

[John Jorsett]

How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?'

There's the real reason. Schmidt is afraid of techno-paparazzi catching him hunting H1B visa holders on his mansion grounds.

wholesale jewelry scarves

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume trust to blogging whim wriggle more stock, mainly due to corporate blogging. I evermore intimate to my clients to continue a blog to their existing websites seeking 3 reasons:
Wow! This can be one particular of the most useful blogs We have ever arrive across on this subject. Actually Great. I am also a specialist in this topic therefore I can understand your effort.
I have search some information and blogs that might
need someday. Good thing I finally found your site.
wholesale earmuff

jewelry scarves wholesale

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying thanks will not just be enough, for the extraordinary lucidity in your writing. I will immediately grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates
Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some pics to drive the message home a little bit, but other than that, this is great blog. A great read. I will certainly be back.
A very well-written post. I read and liked the post and have also bookmarked you. All the best for future endeavors.
wholesale sunglasses
wholesale leggings
wholesale earmuff
wholesale hats

Civilian Drones are the only defense of liberty...

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilian Drones are the only defense of liberty against Government Drones aimed at Citizens!

The absurd beliefs of the power rich and hungry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my God that's got to be the most hilarious thing ever - Governments have the "legitimacy" to be fighting wars. Garnered from where, pray tell, my "lord"? Certainly not from me. Almost nobody on Earth gives their express informed consent to 98% of the things governments do. What an absurd thing to say. These people really are off the hook in their delusional beliefs. All the guns and drones for the selected authorised "authorities" and "officials" in our two class system, and none for anyone else. Wonder what that means? Have a look at history. Governments have killed billions of people in the last few centuries alone! And those are not military deaths, we're talking civilians, women children the lot. And they have the nerve to pontificate about the regulation of weapons!

Re:The absurd beliefs of the power rich and hungry

[Anonymous Coward]

Google "DEMOCIDE" for some perspective... out side of Eric's lofty sycophantic pontifications that is...

Excuse me Mr. Eric Schmidt

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Eric Schmidt, I would like to point out a few things. 1) Civilian drones were here first, if in doubt, please bing "rc aircraft". 2) It has been pointed out that the government is not the only group that have needs as you describe "democratize the ability to fight war to every single human being." Please read the second amendment, it is not talking about hunting or anything else other then to maintain a populace who controls their own ability to fight war.
Really scary amendment I do see, but that is why it is there.

Model airplanes and model rockets

[Anonymous Coward]

So are they going to license... Model airplanes? Model rockets? Model helicopters? Model blimps? Paper airplanes? Fireworks?
Dash board cams? Headset cams? Pocket pen spy cams?
Maybe they could license eyeballs?
(What a waste of time for no value).

Eric Schmidt is full of shit...

[WytKnight]

I think he just does not want competition for Google's violations of privacy. Besides Farcebook his company is one of the worst offenders.

Or give everyone counter measures...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can burn a drone out of the sky with little more than a converted microwave oven, a wave guide, and a dielectric lens system.

They don't run on Android.

[Anonymous Coward]

If drones ran on Android he'd be sucking data out of them like a vampire. Imagine a device that can record audio, video, and your location without your permission and send that data to be analysed in a huge database which can track and assess your movements, your sexual preferences, who you associate with, your financial status, your addictions, your health and your current state of mind. Who needs a drone when you have an Android mobile phone.

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they should quickly act to regulate before what happened with the model boat and model airplane industry happens to the model drone industry.

How would I feel about it ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I hope my neighbor likes seeing my balls all day, cuz he's gonna.

stupid

[TsuruchiBrian]

"How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"

How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a camera and attached it to his roof. It just records your house all day. How would you feel about it?

I would not feel good about it. However, I am not sure I would feel much worse knowing my neighbor was constantly monitoring the top of my house rather than the side of my house. I am positive that my fear of hypothetical neighbors spying on me is a good reason to create laws regulating something that has not happened yet.

Why not wait to see what the danger is before regulating it? Human governments are already experts at coming up with regulations that are obsolete by decades. Why make this mistake even worse by passing regulations on a future that hasn't even happened yet? Do we not have any other problems in the present to deal with?

Really?

[mark-t]

"How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"

I'd feel like my neighbor is an idiot, personally.... if he thinks he's going to see anything that's worth that kind of trouble. My private life isn't interesting enough for anybody else with a good grip on their sanity to find it remotely worth investing in that kind of effort to learn more about.

Let's ban baloons as well!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They can be used for surveillance and on top of that they make a loud noise at the end of life!