Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

#41

Post by banachtarski »

ISL wrote: post #31

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 fin…

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?

Re: Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

#42

Post by magicalist »

VladRussian2 wrote: post #39
TrevorJ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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'…

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

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/private-drones-pose-privac...

Re: Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

#43

Post by baddox »

stcredzero wrote: post #26
baddox wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

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

Re: Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

#44

Post by 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.

Re: Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

#45

Post by 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/uas_faq/index.cfm?p...

Re: Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

#46

Post by stcredzero »

baddox wrote: post #43
stcredzero wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

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?

Re: Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

#47

Post by 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.

Re: Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

#48

Post by neurotech1 »

everettForth wrote: post #3

"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?

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.

Re: Drones should be banned from private use, says Google's Eric Schmidt

#50

Post by pan69 »

ISL wrote: post #31

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 fin…

> 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 :).

Post reply on HN