Slashdot Mirror


France Cries Foul At World Cup "Spy Drone"

mpicpp (3454017) writes with news of amateur drones appearing at the World Cup, quoting Ars Technica: "France's World Cup soccer team has filed a complaint with FIFA, claiming that someone used a small unmanned aircraft to spy on the team's training camp near São Paulo, Brazil as players prepared for their match against Honduras Sunday, the BBC reports. The quadrocopter appears from video to be a Phantom II autonomous micro-drone with a video camera.

'Apparently, drones are being used more and more,' France's manager Didier Deschamps told the BBC. 'We don't want intrusion into our privacy. It's hard to fight.' Deschamps did not comment on who might be behind the surveillance but said in an interview with Football Italia that he believed the drone was operated by one of France's potential opponents or by a French news agency."
Police later captured the drone operator, who claimed just to be a fan bitten by a bit too much curiosity.

24 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. A taste of things to come? by jargonburn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I like my privacy.
    In many ways, I would like to say "shoot the damn thing!" but depending on local laws that could get ugly. This camp was private property and closed to the public, right?

    Still, there must be some way to deter such drones. Capture, and release after disabling the camera? If the drone gets damaged during the capture...well...C'est la vie!

    Of course, if it's not private property, my level of sympathy would decrease greatly.

    1. Re:A taste of things to come? by Splab · · Score: 2

      Even if you are in public, local laws might prevent you from snapping away; usually people must have the ability to opt out of their picture being taken, which is pretty easy, when someone is pointing a camera at you, however, when a drone flies by, it's next to impossible.

      The other day I was stalked by a drone in a park, which I must say, is rather unsettling, don't really care about it taking pictures, but those propellers are aggressive and when the drone is only 2 meters from your head, you do start to wonder, just how good are those guys at handling it...

    2. Re:A taste of things to come? by CaptQuark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish people would stop using the word "Drone" unless it is a truly autonomous vehicle. What this was is a Remote Controlled quadcopter operated by a fan that wanted to watch their practice session.

      Arial photography is used in many situations. A traffic helicopter, a blimp at sporting events, small planes, balloons, and even kites have been used to capture pictures and video from the air. (Kite photography circa 1889 http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff... )

      If the fan had been in a tall office building next to the practice field instead, would this have been news?

      I agree that the use of toy helicopters to carry cameras is a new concern for some people, but stop using the word "drone" just to sensationalize it.

      ~~

    3. Re:A taste of things to come? by Molt · · Score: 5, Informative

      The use of the word drone to describe these is correct.

      The Oxford English Dictionary includes the definition for a Drone as 'A pilotless aircraft or missile directed by remote control', a use that dates back at least to 1946 ("The Navy's drones will be..led—by radio control, of course—to a landing field at Roi."). There's no definition listed for a completely autonomous unit.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    4. Re:A taste of things to come? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Arial photography is used in many situations.

      Yet many people despise it. I blame it on typography elitism.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:A taste of things to come? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      I wish people would stop using the word "Drone" unless it is a truly autonomous vehicle. What this was is a Remote Controlled quadcopter operated by a fan that wanted to watch their practice session.

      Drones are not a truly autonomous vehicle, but I agree that the word "Drone" is being misused. I believe that "R/C Aircraft" is to "Drone" like "boat" is to "ship".

      You wouldn't call an aircraft carrier a boat, and you wouldn't call a dinghy a ship. Same could be said about small R/C planes not being called "Drones" and the Predator Drone not being called a "R/C Aircraft". Technically Ships are a boat and Drones are R/C aircraft but their size and capability justify the different terminology.

      Just my two cents.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    6. Re:A taste of things to come? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      I wish people would stop using the word "arial" unless they're referring to a font.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  2. Other consequences by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are still at $1000 but once these toys fall below a tenth of that price, some things will have to change.

    It will start with laws to regulate their possession and fines for illicit uses, but it will also promote a business of countermeasures.

    Nude beaches, celebrity mansions, "secret" open air activities or even high end hotels that want to guarantee some degree of privacy to their customers, will want a way to block their use.

    Whoever knows how to make an anti-drone device better patent it quickly and put it on Amazon for hundreds of bucks. Clients will soon come.

    1. Re:Other consequences by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 2

      I most civilized countries the use of fire arms for this purpose would be illegal. Just make protection drones that force the intruding drones down. It would be fun to watch the drone wars.

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    2. Re:Other consequences by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      Seeing does not equate recording and publishing on the internet.

      What do you think would be the result of someone going to a nude beach and record everyone with a gopro? Well, the drone would be the same thing but less reachable.

    3. Re:Other consequences by mrvan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is an important part of the story. Public decency laws, and nude beaches as an official exception to them, are not there to protect the nude people, they're there to protect the prude from the nude.

      The sad truth is, however, that while being nude at a nude beach is OK, having a picture taken of you and distributed outside that context is not OK. For one thing, it violates my feeling of privacy more than a picture of me walking in the park (I guess there is still a remnant of prudishness there), but it can also damage my reputation and social standing among people who dislike nudity. Thus, it makes perfect sense to be stricter about taking and distributing pictures from nude beaches, just like there is a distinction between taking a picture of me in my front garden (maybe ok?), sunbathing in my back garden (less ok), watching television in my living room (bad) and having fun in the bedroom or bathroom (really bad).

      (Note also that most people don't go to nude beaches because they're exhibitionist: they go there because it is much nicer to sunbathe and swim without swimming gear. If you've never swum naked, you should really try it one day, it's a world of difference)

    4. Re:Other consequences by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There is still the common misconception that having windows in your bedroom allows the guy across the street to record and broadcasting everything happening inside. And there is still the common misconception that me publishing a picture of me allows you to publish all the pictures you have of me.

      This could be called the Facebook fallacy. "Some people publish intime details about themselves on Facebook, thus everyone is allowed to record and publish every intime detail about everyone in the world."

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  3. French privacy laws are quite different by evilandi · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's worth noting why the French team in particular, so vehemently object to drones, in a way that other nationals might not, or at least might do so less outspokenly.

    In France you have ownership of your own image. A photographer needs to have your permission if they want to take a photo that has you as the main subject.

    Obviously they don't need permission if you're just an incidental bystander or a face in a crowd. But if you're one of the primary subjects, then in France, you have to give your permission.

    This also applies to merchandising and the law is often used in a similar way to trademarking or endorsement.

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    1. Re:French privacy laws are quite different by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It has them until a country with armed forces says otherwise.

  4. Re:Luftfwaffe Light by korbulon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Probably the Germans doing reconnaissance on the French squad.

    Because if it was the Belgians it would have been a Luftwaffle.

  5. Re:No, you don't have an opt out. by Splab · · Score: 5, Informative

    You know how people know you are a true 'Murican?

    Did you miss the part about local laws? This drone was in Brazil and I'm talking about the laws I know, which is Danish law - if you take a picture in Denmark, they can ask you to remove it and you must comply.

    Just because you feel like your picture is important, doesn't mean some random stranger wants to be in on it.

    Also, if the subject happens to be a model by trade, they can by local law sue you for the damages to their brand, if the picture you took end up on the internet (there are some exceptions to this). Again local law.

  6. Easy. by goodEvans · · Score: 2

    Paintball gun. Non-damaging to the drone, preserves privacy. Simples.

    1. Re:Easy. by wed128 · · Score: 2

      Non-damaging to the drone

      These inexpensive toy drones are pretty lightweight. I doubt a paintball *wouldn't* damage the drone...

  7. Re:Drones over the matches by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

    Most high importance stadiums have cameras on wires, as you said you thought it was initially - but are you aware that they aren't just on wires that allow them to move forward and backward? These days they are connected to four wires (north, south, east and west), and can travel in all directions, can be lowered to the height of the pitch, raised to a given maximum height, and do all sorts of things (the wires have pulleys at each end, which lengthen or shorten the wire as required - work all 4 in tandem and you have 360 degree movement) - its no longer just one linear direction of travel.

    Thats probably what you saw, rather than a drone.

  8. They know how to deal with drones in L.A. by wiredog · · Score: 3, Interesting
  9. Re:410 by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    A 410 loaded with some bird shot and choked right would solve that problem real easy for you and be of no real danger (except for the drone).

    Yes, that would definitely take out the drone, and would probably get the LiPo battery nicely on fire, too, as it comes crashing down in urban Brazil. And certainly no danger, except for possible eye damage to someone a hundred meters away, and that whole whatever-the-equivalent-is-in-Brazil part where discharging a firearm in town and/or at someone else's property is a For Real felony. Otherwise, excellent plan.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  10. Re:No, you don't have an opt out. by stenvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This drone was in Brazil and I'm talking about the laws I know, which is Danish law - if you take a picture in Denmark, they can ask you to remove it and you must comply.

    Apparently, you don't know your own laws:

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...

  11. As in many things in life... by judoguy · · Score: 2

    ...the phrase "That's why they make shotguns" applies here.

    --
    Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    1. Re:As in many things in life... by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      birdshot fired at near vertical angle doesn't come down hard enough to hurt someone, and your fire scenario is just laughable. fret much?