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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[sonamchauhan]

You've not been drinking enough water again Harald!

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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.

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?

@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

[ChrisMaple]

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

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. :)

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.

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?

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).

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

[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.)

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.

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.

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?).

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.

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.

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

[Johann Lau]

.... news at 11.

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...

[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?

What's the magic word?

[wonkey_monkey]

Eric Schmidt: Regulate Civilian Drones Now...

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

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?

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: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

While they're at it ...

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

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

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.

Re:The Right To Bear Arms

[jfdavis668]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

"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."

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.

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.

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"

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.)