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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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]

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!

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

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.

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: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.