Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/21/drones-google-eric-schmidt?CMP=twt_gu
29 comments
Or, perhaps even more pertinent, Google's commercial observational satellite[1], which already flies over our houses all day.
[1] http://www.informationweek.com/applications/google-launches-...
[1] http://www.informationweek.com/applications/google-launches-...
You raise a good point: it is in Google's interest to maintain a monopoly on as much data as they can.
It just dawned on him that perhaps Schmidt's Google should have focused on improving drone technology instead of driverless cars.
Perhaps they could have made a ton of money, launching drones as a service for the likes of Amazon and the postal. Perhaps they should have monopolized the skies if the hobbiest drones werent interfering with the commercial prospect this technology offers.
Google is still in a good position to integrate this technology with their maps...
(Just thinking loud..)
Perhaps they could have made a ton of money, launching drones as a service for the likes of Amazon and the postal. Perhaps they should have monopolized the skies if the hobbiest drones werent interfering with the commercial prospect this technology offers.
Google is still in a good position to integrate this technology with their maps...
(Just thinking loud..)
and Google self-driving cars would become a niche product - for trucks only - once drones will en masse appear able to carry 200kg, i.e. 2 persons. eVolo is just a humble start. Self-flying versions of it, especially considering their roots in RC drones, is different tech than cars.
Considering that Bezos understands drones and Google is competitor to Amazon and has been missing the quiet revolution coming, this isn't a surpising salvo.
Considering that Bezos understands drones and Google is competitor to Amazon and has been missing the quiet revolution coming, this isn't a surpising salvo.
Schmidt has been talking about this long before Amazon made their announcement[1]
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/private-drones-pose-privac...
[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/private-drones-pose-privac...
It's silly that this is the top comment. Your examples aren't even analogous. The proper comparison would be the Streetview car sitting outside your house filming continuously, or someone wearing Google Glass standing outside your front window looking in while recording. These things would bother you far more than a Streetview car driving by or meeting someone wearing Google Glass.
However, as other's have noted, we already have remedies for those sorts of things, and things like someone filming via a telescope pointed at your house (you call the cops). I can get the slippery slope argument Schmidt is making, but you could make the same argument about just about any already-available concealable tech device, from radio transmitters to spy cams to the web cams in every laptop with exploitable software. We do have growing pains with all of those things, and so we inevitably get people that exploit them who the law isn't fully able to deal with (or even catch), but with all the benefits they also bring, it isn't worth trying to ban these things over that fact.
However, as other's have noted, we already have remedies for those sorts of things, and things like someone filming via a telescope pointed at your house (you call the cops). I can get the slippery slope argument Schmidt is making, but you could make the same argument about just about any already-available concealable tech device, from radio transmitters to spy cams to the web cams in every laptop with exploitable software. We do have growing pains with all of those things, and so we inevitably get people that exploit them who the law isn't fully able to deal with (or even catch), but with all the benefits they also bring, it isn't worth trying to ban these things over that fact.
If everybody has Google Glass on their heads, is there a difference between whether it's a drone buzzing above our heads and whether it's face-mounted cameras?
Mobile phones are already used as spy devices -- do you really think the camera and microphone are off? How do you know?
Most people plainly place their phones on tables after sitting, but would it be so shocking for them to carry a tape recorder everywhere?
Mobile phones are already used as spy devices -- do you really think the camera and microphone are off? How do you know?
Most people plainly place their phones on tables after sitting, but would it be so shocking for them to carry a tape recorder everywhere?
Uh, that's exactly my point. We are surrounded by devices that can be and sometimes are abused for this kind of surveillance. We've judged them useful enough that it warrants using existing systems to deal with abusers, even while acknowledging that many of them can be used so surreptitiously that we're not going to catch everyone who is abusing them. Drones have so many uses I would say they fall in that same category.
How would he feel if someone flung a dung through his open window or doors?
Drones are so fragile. I can imagine lots of possible countermeasures. Hacking, jamming, shooting (slingshot will suffice), throwing a net over it spraying it with water, glue or abrasive powder, EMPing, blinding with laser, burning with laser, deploying counter drone.
Than again what can you do about flung poo?
I thing we should ban people from excitement handling. Let corporations wipe your ass.
One might wonder what kind of neighbors Eric Schmidt has.
Drones are so fragile. I can imagine lots of possible countermeasures. Hacking, jamming, shooting (slingshot will suffice), throwing a net over it spraying it with water, glue or abrasive powder, EMPing, blinding with laser, burning with laser, deploying counter drone.
Than again what can you do about flung poo?
I thing we should ban people from excitement handling. Let corporations wipe your ass.
One might wonder what kind of neighbors Eric Schmidt has.
I disagree with Eric Schmidt that the solution to the problem is banning drones. There are many, many methods of surveillance or recording that can compromise a persons expectation of privacy/safety/security.
There is plenty of legal precedence for civil and low-level police enforcement of complaints between neighbors. e.g. "Peeping Tom" over the fence would be actionable.
The fact that a drone is the tool used to commit the privacy breach doesn't change existing law with regard to expectation of privacy.
The "potential to 'democratise the ability to fight war'" point is misguided. 'war fighters' have been able to design and build various Remote Control Weaponry for many decades, and certainly predating WWII. The availability of a drone design on the internet might make production easier, but I don't believe internet publication is an enabling factor for weaponry.
There is plenty of legal precedence for civil and low-level police enforcement of complaints between neighbors. e.g. "Peeping Tom" over the fence would be actionable.
The fact that a drone is the tool used to commit the privacy breach doesn't change existing law with regard to expectation of privacy.
The "potential to 'democratise the ability to fight war'" point is misguided. 'war fighters' have been able to design and build various Remote Control Weaponry for many decades, and certainly predating WWII. The availability of a drone design on the internet might make production easier, but I don't believe internet publication is an enabling factor for weaponry.
Pretty much my first thought too, add in knowing where I browse, and what I search for.
The natural cycle continues. Young disruptors grow older and move for regulation and control.
If drones are outlawed, only outlaws will have drones.
What may be needed isn't laws and regulations, but a common understanding of what is and isn't acceptable for drones. There's not a lot of room on our planet; it's important for us to develop societal norms for where we want and don't want technology.
It's jarring to find popped helium balloons in the wilderness. I'd be sad and unhappy to see and hear drones flitting about our treasured mountains, and even in our city skies. We're tool-builders, but we must be careful with our tools.
If drones are outlawed, only outlaws will have drones.
What may be needed isn't laws and regulations, but a common understanding of what is and isn't acceptable for drones. There's not a lot of room on our planet; it's important for us to develop societal norms for where we want and don't want technology.
It's jarring to find popped helium balloons in the wilderness. I'd be sad and unhappy to see and hear drones flitting about our treasured mountains, and even in our city skies. We're tool-builders, but we must be careful with our tools.
> What may be needed isn't laws and regulations, but a common understanding of what is and isn't acceptable for drones.
Sure. People don't even seem to understand the rules of road and keep killing each other and themselves, and you're pushing for "common understanding of what is and isn't acceptable".
Most people who walk this earth are not as clever as you might think. Just because you're intelligent, doesn't mean that everyone else is.
It seems that the human race needs very strict boundaries and limitations. But then again, in the US it's normal to have a gun and look at how "common understanding of what is and isn't acceptable" is working with that.
It's obviously only a matter of time before some dipshit is going to fly a bomb into some embassy. I understand that this will be the "outlaw" doing this but nevertheless, if you're not able to prevent it, by outlawing it you have at least the option to prosecute when abuse takes place.
(shit, reading this back I sound like some right wing fanatic. I can assure you I'm not :).
Sure. People don't even seem to understand the rules of road and keep killing each other and themselves, and you're pushing for "common understanding of what is and isn't acceptable".
Most people who walk this earth are not as clever as you might think. Just because you're intelligent, doesn't mean that everyone else is.
It seems that the human race needs very strict boundaries and limitations. But then again, in the US it's normal to have a gun and look at how "common understanding of what is and isn't acceptable" is working with that.
It's obviously only a matter of time before some dipshit is going to fly a bomb into some embassy. I understand that this will be the "outlaw" doing this but nevertheless, if you're not able to prevent it, by outlawing it you have at least the option to prosecute when abuse takes place.
(shit, reading this back I sound like some right wing fanatic. I can assure you I'm not :).
Fortunately, bombing an embassy is already against the law. No shortage of ways to prosecute.
Agreed. Anybody can make a molotov cocktail at home. Does that mean war is "democratized?" We have all sorts of means for surveillance too. Honestly, Eric Schmidt strikes me as a luddite. What's to stop a motivated individual from making his own drones illegally?
It is sensible to have regulation.
But his suggestion is so completely asinine, it even directly hurts Google!
If this ever gains any traction, the question will arise why drones in the sky should be unavailable to private individuals but drones moving on the ground should be available.
You know.
Drones on the ground, aka self-driving cars.
But his suggestion is so completely asinine, it even directly hurts Google!
If this ever gains any traction, the question will arise why drones in the sky should be unavailable to private individuals but drones moving on the ground should be available.
You know.
Drones on the ground, aka self-driving cars.
> Schmidt set out the trajectory of robotic warfare and considered whether it would be confined solely to national governments. "It's probable that robotics becomes a significant component of nation state warfare," he said.
This after Google makes a huge investment in robotics companies. Their future potential competitors in this space are in peoples' garages right now. This is Google pulling the ladder up after them.
This after Google makes a huge investment in robotics companies. Their future potential competitors in this space are in peoples' garages right now. This is Google pulling the ladder up after them.
> "You're having a dispute with your neighbour," he hypothesised. "How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their back yard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"
Or, your neighbor spies on you with a telescope. Or he just breaks into your house and assaults you. I don't get the point. I fly multirotors responsibly for my own enjoyment, so screw you if you want to stop me.
Or, your neighbor spies on you with a telescope. Or he just breaks into your house and assaults you. I don't get the point. I fly multirotors responsibly for my own enjoyment, so screw you if you want to stop me.
Why does anyone care what Google's Eric Schmidt thinks about drones?
On this subject, he has no particular knowledge or experience that anyone else doesn't have.
On this subject, his opinion is completely unremarkable and worth just about as much the opinion of an artist who draws graphics for a Cheerios box.
When people whine about "powerful white males" having too much say in the media, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN. There is NO REASON we should be listening to Eric Schmidt's opinion on something he clearly knows next to nothing about. There is no reason to fill newspapers and web pages with his utterly unremarkable words about drones.
If he were to talk about, say, search engines or advertising, then yes, it's useful. That's what he does for a living. But w/r/t to drones, he's just as dumb and fearful as 50% or more of the world out there.
Moving further into his ideas, they are about as thoughtful and deep as a goldfish bowl. His analogy about an angry neighbor is laugh-out-loudable. An angry neighbor can do all matter of things today with all manner of tools following the dispute he mentions. Should we ban all of them, too?
For example, > "It's got to be regulated. [...] "
Drones ARE regulated.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/index.cfm?p...
On this subject, he has no particular knowledge or experience that anyone else doesn't have.
On this subject, his opinion is completely unremarkable and worth just about as much the opinion of an artist who draws graphics for a Cheerios box.
When people whine about "powerful white males" having too much say in the media, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN. There is NO REASON we should be listening to Eric Schmidt's opinion on something he clearly knows next to nothing about. There is no reason to fill newspapers and web pages with his utterly unremarkable words about drones.
If he were to talk about, say, search engines or advertising, then yes, it's useful. That's what he does for a living. But w/r/t to drones, he's just as dumb and fearful as 50% or more of the world out there.
Moving further into his ideas, they are about as thoughtful and deep as a goldfish bowl. His analogy about an angry neighbor is laugh-out-loudable. An angry neighbor can do all matter of things today with all manner of tools following the dispute he mentions. Should we ban all of them, too?
For example, > "It's got to be regulated. [...] "
Drones ARE regulated.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/index.cfm?p...
"How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their back yard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"
Roughly the same as I'd feel about them buying a telescope and pointing it in my bedroom window; really creeped out, film it and call the cops on them.
Really. We're meant to take this seriously now? Almost any technology can be abused. I can think of several ways to kill or seriously harm my neighbour with the contents of my cleaning cupboard if I'd the mind to - far worse than just being a creepy pest to them. Are we supposed to go down the EVERYTHING IS TERRIBLE! BAN EVERYTHING. route? The saving grace of society isn't that these things are difficult, it's that most people don't think as predators very often.
Who knows maybe your neighbour actually has a soul.
Roughly the same as I'd feel about them buying a telescope and pointing it in my bedroom window; really creeped out, film it and call the cops on them.
Really. We're meant to take this seriously now? Almost any technology can be abused. I can think of several ways to kill or seriously harm my neighbour with the contents of my cleaning cupboard if I'd the mind to - far worse than just being a creepy pest to them. Are we supposed to go down the EVERYTHING IS TERRIBLE! BAN EVERYTHING. route? The saving grace of society isn't that these things are difficult, it's that most people don't think as predators very often.
Who knows maybe your neighbour actually has a soul.
"How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their back yard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"
Same arguments can be used against handheld camcorders, smartphones etc.
Same arguments can be used against handheld camcorders, smartphones etc.
Or Google Glass, or Streetview, or...
It's almost as if Mr. Schmidt is speaking as a hyopcrite...
It's almost as if Mr. Schmidt is speaking as a hyopcrite...
> Same arguments can be used against handheld camcorders, smartphones etc.
You mean if you throw them over your neighbor's house?
You mean if you throw them over your neighbor's house?
So then, your point is that multirotors should be banned because your neighbors can now inspect your roof without your permission?
No, my point is that "handheld camcorders" are nothing like multirotors.
Or balloons.
"I'm not going to pass judgment on whether armies should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratise the ability to fight war to every single human being."
What an interesting choice of words.
He might want to read the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution (just as a good place to start).
What an interesting choice of words.
He might want to read the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution (just as a good place to start).
I'd like to ask him if he thinks big armies are more likely to exist when governments use taxation, fiscal policy, and conscription to fund and staff armies, or if things are "democratized."
There's an infinite amount of devices and technology out there that could be misused already, but there's a legal framework in place to help mitigate that potential.
I don't see drones being fundamentally different in any way that would make them impossible to regulate. The FCC is a great example: it's stupidly simple to interfere with radio signals but it's not a big problem because enforcement is taken seriously.
I don't see drones being fundamentally different in any way that would make them impossible to regulate. The FCC is a great example: it's stupidly simple to interfere with radio signals but it's not a big problem because enforcement is taken seriously.
Not all drones are for killing. Currently I'm in a team working on quadcopter drones to help with surf life saving/beach patrol.
Sounds like he's trying to prevent the democratisation of an upcoming technology.
Sounds like he's trying to prevent the democratisation of an upcoming technology.
A licence similar to a driving license seems like the way to go. It seems perfectly reasonable to require some training before being allowed a drone (for safety reasons). Each drone should have the electronic equivalent of a license plate for identification and if an owner is found to be using their drone in an illegal manner (laws to be determined...) then their license should be revoked.
There are incredible opportunities for doing cool things with drones, but a framework for managing their use seems perfectly reasonable to me.
There are incredible opportunities for doing cool things with drones, but a framework for managing their use seems perfectly reasonable to me.
> Eric Schmidt...warned of the potential of new technology to "democratise the ability to fight war"
Umm, isn't that supposedly a good thing? There's a reason that most modern governments are composed of elected representatives to make military decisions.
Umm, isn't that supposedly a good thing? There's a reason that most modern governments are composed of elected representatives to make military decisions.
I think that's in the sense of things like "the web will democratize publishing" by allowing anyone with a blog or twitter or a youtube channel or whatever to be a news source, writer, film publisher, etc.
Google has inverted from "don't be evil" to "let's be evil". Why should governments have rights that the people don't?
I can only dream that one day neighborhood disputes will be resolved through miniature dogfights over the yard. Stream video from the "cockpit" for friends or coordinated teamwork. Toss in a dead man's switch hooked up to an EMP cannon. Safe? Nope. The epitome of fucking awesome childhood fantasies? Absolutely.
When the tech (and materials, refab costs, etc) get low enough, suburbia is going to get a whole lot more interesting...
When the tech (and materials, refab costs, etc) get low enough, suburbia is going to get a whole lot more interesting...
Wow, Eric Schmidt is blinded by his desire to maintain power. His greatest fear is losing his power... He says private drones should be banned and mentions nothing about the commercial use of drones by companies, especially his own company. And then he uses a small isolated example of drones being used for evil as to why they should be banned...terrorists? come on! Nothing is mentioned about drones being used for search and rescue, global natural resource tracking, travel, or even space exploration! This is clearly an attempt by a frightened individual to maintain control.
What we should start considering and making plans for is pooling our resources together in order to setup a system of public, open-sourced drones whose data is freely available to everyone, with an official, central repository backed up and stored at the NSA (after we open-source that and get a public API working).
Google's street view cars would no longer be needed. We could have a real-time digital duplicate of reality running using the NSA's resources. Anybody can plug in and 'teleport' anywhere in the world. Any crime that would happen would be recorded live, and emergency broadcast systems can be implemented.
Unfortunately, no person or company could profit from this publicly available data. Any monetized analysis tool would be duplicated and hosted publicly for free via the NSA web services. All open source and anyone can view and improve the code and master pulls can be voted on by the community.
This is great for location and mapping data, but what about taking it a step further and maybe we could use these drones as a sort of 'opt-in' activity tracker. We've heard of the military using gait detection from drones to track 'terrorists'. Well, how many people can one drone track at a time? Also, can it measure heart-rate, steps taken, breathes per minute, O2 levels, etc... There goes fitbit and fuelband...
This is just getting started, there's still traveling and shipping that can be freed and open-sourced...
What we should start considering and making plans for is pooling our resources together in order to setup a system of public, open-sourced drones whose data is freely available to everyone, with an official, central repository backed up and stored at the NSA (after we open-source that and get a public API working).
Google's street view cars would no longer be needed. We could have a real-time digital duplicate of reality running using the NSA's resources. Anybody can plug in and 'teleport' anywhere in the world. Any crime that would happen would be recorded live, and emergency broadcast systems can be implemented.
Unfortunately, no person or company could profit from this publicly available data. Any monetized analysis tool would be duplicated and hosted publicly for free via the NSA web services. All open source and anyone can view and improve the code and master pulls can be voted on by the community.
This is great for location and mapping data, but what about taking it a step further and maybe we could use these drones as a sort of 'opt-in' activity tracker. We've heard of the military using gait detection from drones to track 'terrorists'. Well, how many people can one drone track at a time? Also, can it measure heart-rate, steps taken, breathes per minute, O2 levels, etc... There goes fitbit and fuelband...
This is just getting started, there's still traveling and shipping that can be freed and open-sourced...
Its one thing to make it illegal to use drones to harm other people; and another thing to say that only Google, Amazon, and the U.S. Government can own drones.
I'm not a legal expert, but I think it's already illegal to use drones to harm other people (unless you work for the government).
How does this amazing "unless you work for the government" clause work? Seriously, what is the legal basis of such exceptions?
EDIT: I'm not criticizing the parent comment. This is a legitimate question! (As usual!)
EDIT: I'm not criticizing the parent comment. This is a legitimate question! (As usual!)
"Government for the people by the people" implies the democratization of power; such as drones. Maybe its a bad idea.
I threw in the exception lest anyone point out that the US military regularly uses drones to harm people.
I'm not criticizing you. It is a legitimate question. There have always seemed to be exceptions for the government. Does this stem from "war powers?" What is the basis?
I suppose so. Most people agree that it's legal for the government to perform military actions. Which military actions are legal is controversial, of course.
"Schmidt said Google was "super-sensitive" on privacy..."
This is hard to believe. Let's recall that during the US investigation into the wi-fi data that Google captured, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said Google had "deliberately impeded and delayed" the investigation for months. Earlier this year, the UK Information Commissioner's Office ordered Google to delete captured wi-fi data or face criminal proceedings. Google had earier pledged to delete the data but actually failed to do so. Are these the actions of a company that takes privacy seriously?
Then there is Google's online reach which is simply phenomenal. Now they have an entire operating system (ChromeOS) which could potentially track everything you do online. You can't even print to your desktop printer without being signed in to your Google account. We don't really know what Google tracks or captures because their vaguely-worded privacy policies don't tell us.
The most depressing aspect of all this? Most people simply don't care (including many in the tech community).
This is hard to believe. Let's recall that during the US investigation into the wi-fi data that Google captured, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said Google had "deliberately impeded and delayed" the investigation for months. Earlier this year, the UK Information Commissioner's Office ordered Google to delete captured wi-fi data or face criminal proceedings. Google had earier pledged to delete the data but actually failed to do so. Are these the actions of a company that takes privacy seriously?
Then there is Google's online reach which is simply phenomenal. Now they have an entire operating system (ChromeOS) which could potentially track everything you do online. You can't even print to your desktop printer without being signed in to your Google account. We don't really know what Google tracks or captures because their vaguely-worded privacy policies don't tell us.
The most depressing aspect of all this? Most people simply don't care (including many in the tech community).
power of language: "commercial observation drone" vs. "remote controlled plane with a go-pro atttached".
They should restrict corporate ownership of these things. Give individuals a break for once.
somehow I doubt terrorists would give a damn about a law restricting their use or ownership.
From reading this article and the comments, I imagine that the future of drones in the US may be much the same as what we're seeing with gun control: many people will see value in private drone ownership and will be okay with regulations around them. Some people will feel that any restrictions are government encroachment and will resist it.
Most likely the vast majority of drones and drone owners will use them responsibly (yes I am being hopelessly optimistic here) and a few will abuse them. Periodically we will see horror stories about misuse of drones (e.g. Newtown) but short of a whole city being wiped out very aggressive restrictions will not exist.
Most likely the vast majority of drones and drone owners will use them responsibly (yes I am being hopelessly optimistic here) and a few will abuse them. Periodically we will see horror stories about misuse of drones (e.g. Newtown) but short of a whole city being wiped out very aggressive restrictions will not exist.
Would this include Google's driverless car?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
I have to imagine there is a middle-ground between disallowing private use of drones altogether, and private citizens launching Hellfire missiles at each other's cars.
I think drones have to much potential value to just flat out ban them. That said, we do need to think about security, and privacy very soon.
Hobby drones are (relatively cheap), if the software keeps getting better, it might soon be possible for a rich person to virtually own an army. That's a lot of power for a small group or even a single individual to wield.
Hobby drones are (relatively cheap), if the software keeps getting better, it might soon be possible for a rich person to virtually own an army. That's a lot of power for a small group or even a single individual to wield.
So is it time for private drone owners to form a lobbying interest to protect their rights? Maybe find an aging actor with a booming voice to use as a political spokesperson?
So... only approved corporations can operate approved drones?
Sounds like a great way to completely monopolize the concept of having flying robots perform useful work.
Drones are unmanned planes. They're not time machines or matter annihilators or teleporters. What makes these devices so scary to certain people?
Perhaps we should ban webcams and poles because they could be used to spy on neighbors too. This is one of the weakest arguments I've ever read.
So, Google is thinking your safety more than you can think for yourself. How is this different than Google taking responsibility of Governments?
Pretty much the same way I feel about Google Streetview? Or Google Glass?