
Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt - flamingbuffalo
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/21/drones-google-eric-schmidt?CMP=twt_gu
======
everettForth
"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?"

Pretty much the same way I feel about Google Streetview? Or Google Glass?

~~~
TrevorJ
You raise a good point: it is in Google's interest to maintain a monopoly on
as much data as they can.

~~~
VladRussian2
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.

~~~
magicalist
Schmidt has been talking about this long before Amazon made their
announcement[1]

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/private-drones-pose-
privac...](http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/private-drones-pose-privacy-
threat-says-googles-eric-schmidt-1C9340969)

------
ISL
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.

~~~
pan69
> 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 :).

~~~
ISL
Fortunately, bombing an embassy is already against the law. No shortage of
ways to prosecute.

------
promptcritical
> 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.

------
baddox
> "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.

------
diydsp
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/)

[http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/index.cfm?p...](http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/index.cfm?print=go)

------
6d0debc071
"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.

------
eitland
"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.

~~~
darkarmani
> Same arguments can be used against handheld camcorders, smartphones etc.

You mean if you throw them over your neighbor's house?

~~~
baddox
So then, your point is that multirotors should be banned because your
neighbors can now inspect your roof without your permission?

~~~
darkarmani
No, my point is that "handheld camcorders" are nothing like multirotors.

------
aniro
"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).

~~~
baddox
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."

------
TrevorJ
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.

------
elnate
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.

------
ollysb
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.

------
baddox
> 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.

~~~
magicalist
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.

------
patrickg_zill
Google has inverted from "don't be evil" to "let's be evil". Why should
governments have rights that the people don't?

------
ics
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...

------
excellence24
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...

------
etanazir
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.

~~~
baddox
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).

~~~
stcredzero
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!)

~~~
baddox
I threw in the exception lest anyone point out that the US military regularly
uses drones to harm people.

~~~
stcredzero
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?

~~~
baddox
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.

------
chestnut-tree
_" 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).

------
jameshart
power of language: "commercial observation drone" vs. "remote controlled plane
with a go-pro atttached".

------
batmansbelt
They should restrict corporate ownership of these things. Give individuals a
break for once.

------
Shivetya
somehow I doubt terrorists would give a damn about a law restricting their use
or ownership.

------
bitops
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.

------
bdcravens
Would this include Google's driverless car?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car)

------
defen
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.

------
swalsh
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.

------
hkarthik
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?

------
oakwhiz
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.

------
drcube
Drones are unmanned planes. They're not time machines or matter annihilators
or teleporters. What makes these devices so scary to certain people?

------
pontifier
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.

------
fsniper
So, Google is thinking your safety more than you can think for yourself. How
is this different than Google taking responsibility of Governments?

