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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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?).

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."

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.

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.