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?

Re:Cows

[fustakrakich]

We have to be careful. Considering the types of people that win elections, this guy could become president some day.

Re:Cows

[Dahamma]

Actually, that describes him pretty accurately...

Re:Cows

[king neckbeard]

Richard Nixon won two elections, Mitt Romney wasn't too far away, and Newt Gingrich was doing okay in the primaries for a while. Schmidt being president isn't all that outlandish.

Re:Cows

[beelsebob]

He won't listen anyway. He made that statement because it was in his commercial interests to disallow other mapping companies/organisations from collecting detailed imagery, not because it's what he genuinely thought was right. No amount of open letters will make him change his mind.

Re:Cows

[Bacon Bits]

Open letters aren't designed to change the addressee's mind. They're designed to open the minds of people that neglected to think about the addressee's opinion or choice.

Re:Cows

[IndustrialComplex]

We have to be careful. Considering the types of people that win elections, this guy could become president some day.

Hey, but when I googled him, the news results for me turned up the fact that he is for every single position I support.

wait a second... my wife just googled him and he is for every single position she supports too... and we don't even agree on everything.

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.

Goose meet Gander

[VortexCortex]

So, if you make your fortune by collecting information about everything including what some folks would consider 'private', readily divulge the information to governments without notifying those the data was collected about, then have a problem when others begin collecting information that's publicly available, does that make you a fool or a hypocrite an elitist, or what? I'm having a problem classifying the degree to which Schmidt's foot is crammed down his own throat.

I really think we need to change the 2nd amendment to be "The Right to Bear Technology" (this includes cryptography).

Re:Goose meet Gander

[b4upoo]

Private acts really are not done in places where they can be observed by others. This is a feelings vs. reason issue. For example a young girl in a string bikini may feel that her privacy has been violated when the wrong guy looks at her or someone snaps pics even though she is on a public beach. The reality is that if it is done withing public view it can not be private.

Re:Goose meet Gander

[Anonymous Coward]

Google maps has all sorts of imagery of areas "not in public view". Eric's a fucking hypocrite.

Re:Goose meet Gander

[vux984]

Private acts really are not done in places where they can be observed by others.

I completely disagree. The conversation at the next table at the restaurant may be within earshot of my table, and I may overhear a few things. But it is still a "semi-private conversation". The patrons at the next table over implicitly accept that their conversation is not "completely private" in a setting like that.

But that doesn't amount to implicit acceptance that I pull up a chair and start taking notes, nor does it amount to implicit acceptance that I hide a microphone in the candle to record everything they say and stream it to youtube.

The reality is that if it is done withing public view it can not be private.

Polite society dictates that even though I can hear things not intended for my ears that I don't put them on the internet. The law isn't so subtle as polite society, but that doesn't mean we should accept that anything not actually illegal is perfectly fine.

Re:Goose meet Gander

[VirtualVirtuality]

Well there's a difference between people _choosing_ to use services like Google, GMail et al, and having your privacy 'invaded' by a drone to which you have not agreed in any way. As for 'readily divulge information without notifying', are they even allowed to? They certainly aren't allowed to say 'no' to that request, and AFAIK Google is the only organisation which actually lists information regarding these 'user data' requests from the government.

Re:Goose meet Gander

[martin-boundary]

The reality is that if it is done withing public view it can not be private.

Wrong. Behaviour and intent matters enormously.

For example, say the girl in the bikini is followed the whole day, everywhere she goes, by some guy who always stands a foot next to her and sticks his head in front of her tits the whole day, that's harassment. Even though she's in public, and he's making sure not to touch her and he's just looking at her.

Same thing with Google. Sure, a lot of the data they collect is public, but actually systematically collecting it all and searching it and compiling secret summaries for law enforcement is bordering on harassment, even though the people who are being harassed don't realize it's happening and aren't being _directly_ harmed (but _indirectly_ very much).

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

[drinkypoo]

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.

The law isn't so subtle as polite society, but that doesn't mean we should accept that anything not actually illegal is perfectly fine.

We should all accept that if we do things in a public place, that we have performed a public act. If you are emitting radio waves, or reflecting photons, or causing vibration of air molecules, others should have a right to receive these signals. Having received them, others should have a right to decode them. If you don't want them decoded, don't transmit them in public. I don't mean to contradict you and suggest that it's acceptable for people to get up in your grill, but it has always been true that when you are in public sight, you don't know who is watching or listening. And it has always been true that you do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place. Eventually we'll all be walking around with enhanced vision and hearing. What will your scruples serve you then? It will be time (it is already long past time) for people to take responsibility for their own actions in public places.

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.

Hypocrisy thy name is Eric

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of whining about his privacy, shouldn't Eric just refrain from doing things he doesn't want others to see? That's what he told us plebes, anyway.

I realize he's rich and all..

[RightSaidFred99]

But Eric's comments make him sound like kind of a moron. Maybe he should stick to computers.

Hint: "Uhh, durr, how would you like it if your neighbor just built a tall treehouse in his yard and stared at your house all day! These treehouses have to be regulated! Oh, and duhh, what if someone uses an RC controlled car and they just drive it around menacingly on your sidewalk in front of your house!".

And now, back to things that are likely to happen in any meaningful number and which can't be easily handled with existing statutes...

Wikidrones.

[Anonymous Coward]

The DC group is basically saying with drones the public can more easily "wikileaks" those who have the power, hiding behind high fences and walls. Scrutinize them to the same degree they scrutinize us. If we're going to lose our privacy, they should to.

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"

Re:Wikidrones.

[Type44Q]

And this, Ladies and Gentlemen (and those of you somewhere in between), gets to the very bottom of why the Establishment has begun ratcheted up its attack on the 2nd Amendment.

On a closely related note, anyone who disputes the fact that Fascism is becoming more and more willing to reveal itself (it has not been dormant for the past ~65 years but rather in disguise) is either a fool or a shill.

Eric Schmidt is incompetent

[globaljustin]

He is not intellectually qualified to be making the decisions of the Google CEO. He's a dork. A geek minus the technical understanding.

He really showed his ass on Colbert last night: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425750/april-23-2013/eric-schmidt

His comments about privacy alone "...they shouldn't be doing bad things" show his ignorance.

On the Colbert Report interview, he claims, "no one knows what the internet is..." and that "humans will one day live forever" and that your "data cannot be deleted"

All of which are false. 1. The internet is a global computer network capable of running applications with continuous connections among users. 2. is not falsifiable so it's just used-car salesman bullshit and 3. if it is stored in memory, it by definition can be deleted. if it's not stored in memory, then it's not on the internet.

And from another discussion I've found that there be trolls on the topic of Schmidt...so, those who say 'He's a CEO not a technician!@!@11'...fsk off...every CEO needs a basic understanding of what they are doing. Schmidt is a fanboi of his own product and it's egregious.

Re:Eric Schmidt is incompetent

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if we saw the same interview, but I think you are twisting his words.

1. He does claim that "no one knows what the internet is...", but he doesn't claim that the physical internet (a global computer network) is an unknown entity, but that actions on the internet are unpredictable. You may choose to believe that they are indeed predictable (and one day they might be), but describing the internet as "a global computer network capable of running applications with continuous connections among users" is not attacking his claim, but rather twisting it.

2. Sure, the statement that "humans will one day live forever" is not falsifiable, but it's not necessarily bullshit. Of course, no one can completely predict what's going to happen (and also prove a priori that there predictions will be correct) because of the inherent randomness in the universe. However, it is his view that technology and science will one day get good enough to support infinite human lives, a view that he has developed being exposed to a lot of technology and progress in his time, and a world view which many intelligent people share.

3. He does claim that "there is no delete button on the internet," ( something which is probably good for Google, and something which google probably helped influence to be true (and will keep influencing)) but as a supporting argument to claiming that you could live forever digitally. However, you take his statment to mean that data can never be deleted, but I took it to mean that as it is currently implemented, and as it will be implemented, you can (choose to) live forever on the internet.

Re:Eric Schmidt is incompetent

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people seem to agree with your bullshit. You all love the fantasy of being intellectually superior to Eric Schmidt.
You prove this face by selecting three statements he made while being interviewed on a fucking comedy show, and then proceed to tear him a new one with your amazing brain thing.

On the Colbert Report interview, he claims, "no one knows what the internet is..." and that "humans will one day live forever" and that your "data cannot be deleted"
All of which are false. 1. The internet is a global computer network capable of running applications with continuous connections among users. 2. is not falsifiable so it's just used-car salesman bullshit and 3. if it is stored in memory, it by definition can be deleted. if it's not stored in memory, then it's not on the internet.

1. Your candy-ass library definition of what the Internet is gave me a chuckle. Thanks for that. I assumed he meant that no one person knows what the Internet does...it's fucking huge. It's used by billions for who knows how many thousands of uses.
2. I'm pretty sure he meant one day some humans will be able to live without growing old. There is no doubt about that if our advances in knowledge and technology continue at their current pace. I'm sure when this treatment becomes available Eric will be able to afford it no problems at all. You and me on the other hand will probably be shit out of luck.
3. Do you have delete access to the filesystems and databases for Facebook and Google and Yahoo and Twitter and web.archive.org and every other international or domestic government, corporate and private server that receives or crawls the Internet for Information? Do you have delete access to the filesystem snapshots those databases are hosted on? Do you have delete access to the tape backups for those databases and filesystems? Or the browser caches of the people that looked at it? Or the zips of the home directories of those browser caches? Or the DVDs that were burnt? Or the USB sticks that were written? Or the SD cards? Or the mobile phones?
Let me assure you that only in the most unicorn infested fantasy land can your personal data be magically deleted from everywhere.
But no, forget all that. You're much smarter than the CEO of Google. He just got really, really, really, really lucky. Damn it, they should give you the job!

Something we - the people - tend to forget

[MindPrison]

... is that WE are the people. We make the laws, not them, alone.

Re:Something we - the people - tend to forget

[Anonymous Coward]

That is untrue. They make the laws. Alone. We follow them or go to prison.
Like a religion.
World wide juristiction.

Changing the balance of power

[gronofer]

I'm curious about what they mean by "power to change the balance of power between individuals and large bureaucracies in much the same way the Internet did in the past".

The Internet improves the ability of the people to speak back and organise themselves. Perhaps personal drones will allow the people to shoot back, with missiles?

Don't forget about the scientific uses

[daveydave400]

I work on a NASA mission that studies tropical storms and attempts to understand their structure so they can be detected/avoided earlier. If it wasn't for the Global Hawk drones we use, pilots would be in danger from flying over the storms and flights would be much shorter (~8hr vs 24+hr) limiting the amount of science that can be done. Here's an article about the first year of three's results: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/missions/hs3/news/hs3-nadine.html

Re:Don't forget about the scientific uses

[tehcyder]

I work on a NASA mission that studies tropical storms and attempts to understand their structure so they can be detected/avoided earlier. If it wasn't for the Global Hawk drones we use, pilots would be in danger from flying over the storms and flights would be much shorter (~8hr vs 24+hr) limiting the amount of science that can be done. Here's an article about the first year of three's results: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/missions/hs3/news/hs3-nadine.html

Scientists use uranium and plutonium in experiments. That doesn't mean they should be available to the general public.

Eric has a point

[maroberts]

AFAICT, Eric Schmidt does not propose banning the personal use of drones, but is in favour of regulation.

If you'd prefer no regulation, then consider how much invasion of privacy someone who wanted to redo Googles Streetview and mapping could do with drones instead of land vehicles? Also reflect on the fact that large companies have the resources to have large fleets of drones. There are huge privacy implications and a start on addressing them is needed now.

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.

Banal

[gomiam]

"... there is a whole world of socially positive and banal applications for drones that are yet to be discovered."

I find it a bit difficult to understand that something banal is socially positive. Then again, maybe I am just not too social.

regulate companies, NOT PEOPLE

[cheekyboy]

I agree, they need regulation, but for corps only.

If its for private use, zero regulation. Current laws are enough to make the obvious illegal.

ie. 500 drones with ricin payloads

Re:regulate companies, NOT PEOPLE

[admdrew]

I don't know that I agree with that. If anything, our laws need to evolve with such a new technology. The laws surrounding both the use of airspace and ground vehicle use don't perfectly apply.

I'd agree for *stricter* regulation for corporations, and for protection for the public against corporate use, but I'm not confident current law is mature enough to sufficiently protect private citizens from other private citizens when it comes to drone use.

From TFS

[tehcyder]

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.

The internet has enabled people to get unlimited quantities of porn, bully strangers at a distance, and do shopping from their homes. It has not altered the balance of power between individuals and bureaucracies, states or corporations in any tangible way.

And before anyone says it, the Arab spring was about masses of bodies on the streets, not the invention of Twatter.

Return of the Semantic Jedi

[Paul Fernhout]

Some satire I wrote five years ago when Google created Knol, reposted here: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/2011-February/000401.html

Gold Leader: Pardon me for asking, sir, but what good are semantic wikis and desktops going to be against [that]?
General Dodonna: Well, the Empire doesn't consider a small cgi script on a shared server or desktop to be any threat, or they'd have a tighter defense. ...

Commander #1: We've analyzed their attack on Knol, sir, and there is a danger. Should I have your Golden Parachute standing by?
Governor Schmidt: Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

----

Maybe the same goes fro private drones in the balance between meshworks and hierarchies?
http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
"Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villains and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they are constantly turning into one another, but because in real life we find only mixtures and hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be established through theory alone but demand concrete experimentation."

Interesting ammendent suggestion. Also related by me: http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/dtd/The-need-for-FOSS-intelligence-tools-for-sensemaking-etc./76207-8319

All that said, I think Eric Schmidt has done a lot of great things, and we could have much worse at the heart of Google. Anyone in that position would face a lot of constraints about what he could say or do; it's amazing anyone could do as well as he has. As Langdon Winner wrote about, the systems (including bureaucracies) we create shape the nature of what components are allowed to exists in them. If the components (including people) act too far out of expectations, they are replaced.