An Open Letter To Google Chairman Eric Schmidt On Drones

savuporo writes "A DC Area Drone User Group has posted an open letter in response to recent comments by Eric Schmidt about banning drones from private use. The closing section reads: 'Personally owned flying robots today have the power to change the balance of power between individuals and large bureaucracies in much the same way the Internet did in the past. And just as the military researchers who developed GPS for guiding munitions could never have imagined their technology would be used in the future to help people conduct health surveys in the world's poorest countries or help people find dates in the world's richest, there is a whole world of socially positive and banal applications for drones that are yet to be discovered. We should embrace this chance that technology provides instead of strangling these opportunities in their infancy. Our hope is that you and the rest of Google's leadership will embrace this pro-technology agenda in the future rather than seeking to stifle it. We would welcome the opportunity to speak further with you about this topic.'"

Comments

Cows

[Anonymous Coward]

Good grief, fuck Google. Who care's what Schmit thinks?

Useful as Surrogates

[lubaciousd]

We're approaching a level of non-invasive brain-computer interface quality that could conceivably be used for controlling a drone. Combine that with smaller, cheaper drones(think UPenn quadrocopters), and you can give people halfway decent surrogate systems relatively soon.

heading off other trolls

[globaljustin]

the public face of Google and holds motivational speeches. Isn't that good for a CEO?

No. The CEO is the final decision maker on all resource allocation. The CEO has final approval of all deals. The CEO chooses who works for the company. The CEO has to sign **Sarbanes-Oxley** and risk jail time on the company's financial accuracy.

You are a troll for sure, but your notions are ruining American business and I hate it. You really deserve to work in a cubicle doing drone work with your attitude.

If you disagree, you can type your bullshit argument but it won't get a response from me. This response is the only response necessary.

You are giving the **CEO** a pass. You and everyone who uses your line of thinking is a troll.

Re:Wikidrones.

[cervesaebraciator]

Or maybe they had something more direct in mind:

It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.

George Orwell, "You and the Atomic Bomb"

possession of drone parts?

[stenvar]

Does that mean that "possession of drone parts" will become a criminal offense? Android phones are drone parts...

The proposal is ridiculous if not for any other reason than that drones will likely be used extensively for home deliveries, environmental monitoring, and other purposes.

Re:Goose meet Gander

[Spliffster]

I am co-founder of a company that produces small autonomous aircrafts. Google bought one from us.

Re:Goose meet Gander

[tlhIngan]

Polite society dictates that even though I can hear things not intended for my ears that I don't put them on the internet.

Those who have crucified Bradley Manning and who would like to do the same to Julian Assange are glad to hear you say that. They are winning the war for our minds, and you are complicit in their victory.

Those statements don't follow.

There are two ways to a polite society. The first is the Google way, which with Glass, means there are no secrets between anyone. Everyone will be polite to each other because they have to. Just like how if everyone had guns pointed at everyone else, they'd be pretty darned polite as well. Of course, this does restrict a lot of freedom since everything is known about everyone. You can't do anything someone somewhere might disapprove of, for example (be it play video games, smoke, cuss, visit adult places, etc).

The other is one where we have private lives that we keep private and use common etiquette to not be asshats to everyone (and enforced by a higher level - i.e., the law). This means overhearing something between two individuals conducting private business isn't acted on by third parties and the like. Unless there is significant public interest (this excludes sensational, but otherwise private dealings - e.g., Apple leaks aren't covered, but whistleblowing is)

Note, I said "private business". This excludes what Bradley Manning did because what he leaked was conversations between public officials. We don't call our government workers "public servants" for nothing. In which case the actions of public servants are well, of public interest.

One can note that this sort of government openness is of the first type of politeness which is fine because barring international treaty, there is no such thing as international law, so the only way to ensure otherwise unregulated government from creating havoc is complete openness.