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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[girlintraining]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so what is different

[berashith]

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

Re:so what is different

[AmiMoJo]

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

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

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.

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

The use by CIVILIANS?

[rbrander]

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

Enough Government

[noobermin]

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

In other words...

[vvaduva]

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

Schmidt

[hackus]

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

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

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

What a load of crap.

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

-Hack

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

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.

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.....

Afraid of competition huh?

[ikaruga]

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

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

Re: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).

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.

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?

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:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Regulate Video Cameras Now!

[FuzzNugget]

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

Schmidt has double standards on privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

Re:Seriously?

[Attila Dimedici]

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

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