Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Privacy Technology

Eric Schmidt: Regulate Civilian Drones Now 420

An anonymous reader writes "Google Chairman Eric Schmidt is urging lawmakers to regulate the use of unmanned aircraft by civilians — and quickly. He posed this hypothetical situation to The Guardian: 'You're having a dispute with your neighbor. How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?' Schmidt went on to bring up military and terrorist concerns. 'I'm not going to pass judgment on whether armies should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratize the ability to fight war to every single human being. It's got to be regulated... It's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it... it's not going to happen.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eric Schmidt: Regulate Civilian Drones Now

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Google (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, 2013 @01:03PM (#43441005)

    If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    If you're going to quote the guy, at least give proper attribution in double quotes and a link to video showing him actually saying that. Here's the citation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew [youtube.com]

    linked from Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Privacy [wikipedia.org]

  • by Trepidity ( 597 ) <delirium-slashdot@@@hackish...org> on Saturday April 13, 2013 @01:34PM (#43441213)

    Current U.S. law doesn't have a specific altitude, but instead a more subjective requirement that the flight must be high enough to be safe and not unreasonably interfere with the owner's use of the property. What height that would be depends in part on how high the owner has built up: flying over a suburban house at 2000 ft might be legal, but buzzing the observation deck of a 1900-ft skyscraper by passing it at 2000 ft probably isn't.

    A bit more here [theatlantic.com].

  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Saturday April 13, 2013 @01:58PM (#43441349) Homepage

    Actually you can.

    My mother, for example, was living outside of a city in Texas. The neighbor's goat kept getting out eating things. She shot it in the head from 50 yards with a 22 pistol dropping it with one shot. She was in a wheel chair by that time.

    County police were called, they had a good laugh, offered to dispose of the dead goat and drove away.

  • by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Saturday April 13, 2013 @02:16PM (#43441457) Journal

    There already is a minimum altitude. 500 feet... 1000 over urban areas...

    Oh, and fuck this Eric Schmidt... He's an ass... Already a proven fact.

  • by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 ) on Saturday April 13, 2013 @02:17PM (#43441465) Homepage Journal

    Shame on The Atlantic for this coverage. They skirt around an issue that is pretty clear. What they say is true when they talk about "What are you going to do about it", as in, if you sue for trespass you may not be able show any "damages" at all, so it may not work. But the law is clear about defending your property, and you are within your rights to take out a trespassing drone with shotgun or slingshot or whatever tool you won't get in trouble just for using.

    The general rule (there are restrictions based on proximity to airports, communication tower installations, etc.) you still control your airspace up to 600 feet. ANY object intruding into this space on your property is trespassing, be it a drone, an aircraft, a blimp, what-have-you. ABOVE 600 feet is all regulated in some way by the FAA, and you can NOT fly your drone into that space without authorization. The FAA stopped taking applications for drone licensing in all regulated airspace in 2004, except from DHS and the DoD. So right now no private or local government entity can get clearance to fly above 600 feet, even on their own property.

    That also means that Eric Schmidt is full of crap. I don't know what his agenda is, but the government is already monopolizing the use of drones everywhere that's not private property or very low, so there is no need to further regulate "civilian" use of them.

  • by dryeo ( 100693 ) on Saturday April 13, 2013 @03:10PM (#43441799)

    Wars have been started by similar acts, eg one of the last times Canada (actually the British Empire) and the States went to war was over an American shooting a trespassing pig and the proposed compensation for the dead pig.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_war [wikipedia.org]

  • by emt377 ( 610337 ) on Saturday April 13, 2013 @07:47PM (#43443419)

    The 500 ft/1000 over urban applies to FAR Pt 103 Ultralights - not drones. If they are not manned, they do not need to meet these reqs. They are treated the same as R/C aircraft, in which case, the only law is "Don't fly it into people or things, or you'll have a bad day."

    I fly lots of RC aircraft, both heli and fixed-wing, and can tell you it's not easy to find a decent flying field. You can't fly above 400 ft, out of visual sight (not that you'd want to without a first-person-view link), over people's property, over roads and highways (including waterways, marinas, etc), or anywhere it's banned. And you'd be amazed how just about every piddly town has an ordinance prohibiting all forms of unmanned model aircraft. This is why it's so hard to find anywhere to fly. Unless you live out in the NV desert the issue of private surveillance drones just doesn't exist. And if you do live in the middle of nowhere you might have a fair amount of acreage to keep tabs on, in which case having one is justifiable. Basically, the whole thing is a complete non-issue for private users. It's really only government and some limited commercial uses, like law enforcement, coast guard/search and rescue, high-acreage businesses like farming and ski areas etc, BLM/Forest Dept, and such where regulation is relevant. The reality is that flying model aircraft today's is almost (though not quite) as difficult as finding someplace to go shoot guns. Private small drones don't really require any additional regulation.

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...