Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chuck Schumer Tells Apple and Google To "Curb Your Spy Planes"

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the moral-panic-from-his-high-horseness dept.

Privacy 302

mk1004 writes with news from The Register that U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York has written to Apple and Google regarding their use of 'military-grade spy planes.' The Senator claims concerns ranging from voyeurism to terrorism. Suggested protections: Warn when areas are going to be imaged, give property owners the right to opt out, and blurring of individuals. Schumer seems happy enough, though, with the more detailed versions of such surveillance being in the hands of law enforcement agencies, and phrases his complaint to emphasize what he perceives as risks to infrastructure brought about by detailed maps that anyone can browse: "[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States. With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location."

cancel ×

302 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It is no coincidence (3, Funny)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385987)

that "WTSHTF" is often referred to as "When the Schumer Hits the Fan".

Re:It is no coincidence (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386317)

That's Chuck-U Schumer to you pal!

Re:It is no coincidence (5, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386509)

Warning people before is a terrible idea. I don't like the prospect of seeing people spreading their buttcheeks to the sky on every single map that's availible.

Whats Up Chuck? (5, Funny)

RapidEye (322253) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385993)

So what is Chuck doing in his back yard that he doesn't want everyone to see, hmmm????

Re:Whats Up Chuck? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386115)

He fucks his dogs. The man is a dog-fucker.

Re:Whats Up Chuck? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386875)

Chuck Schumer has never come out and explicitly said he is not a dog fucker, he must be hiding something, why hasn't NY Rep Peter King had an inquest and congressional meeting about this?

Security by obscurity? (2)

mschiller (764721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40385995)

Come on there must be better way... Perhaps by having a raid array of the appropriate infrastructure?

Re:Security by obscurity? (-1)

mschiller (764721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386007)

Woot!. First post!

Re:Security by obscurity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386201)

Woot!. First post!

It is no coincidence (Score:2)
by Cornwallis (1188489) on Wednesday June 20, @11:43AM (#40385987)

Whats Up Chuck? (Score:1)
by RapidEye (322253) on Wednesday June 20, @11:43AM (#40385993) Homepage

Security by obscurity? (Score:1)
by mschiller (764721) on Wednesday June 20, @11:43AM (#40385995)

Fail.

foist?!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386383)

maybe this time I'll get it!

Re:Security by obscurity? (4, Informative)

Zerth (26112) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386661)

Plus, if you want a complete map of the water infrastructure, you can just asked the water company and they will /give/ it to you.

fear everything! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386011)

let's completely ignore the societal and economic benefits of such technology because ... fear, people. Fear.

Re:fear everything! (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386055)

Yeah.. give corporations the same rights as governments. That always works out for the best.

Re:fear everything! (4, Informative)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386185)

Private individuals as well as corporations have been doing areal photography for private use since around 1860.

Re:fear everything! (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386219)

*Aerial photography.

Damn typo

Re:fear everything! (3, Funny)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386625)

*Areola photography.

FTFY.

Re:fear everything! (0)

readin (838620) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386357)

Give corporations MORE rights than government because corporations are less dangerous. Only governments have the right to use guns to force you to comply with their plans. It is a necessary right that governments must have, but because they have this right their ability to act should be severely restrained.

Corporations have to persuade or bribe you to comply with their wishes (unless of course they co-opt the government - see my point above). Therefore Corporations can be given far more rights than the government.

Re:fear everything! (2)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386467)

Clearly somebody has clearly not been watching Continuum.

Re:fear everything! (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386505)

But since corporations can influence the government to use guns to force you to comply with their plans I would have to say that they are even more dangerous than the government on their own.

Re:fear everything! (4, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386535)

Firstly, governments, wether they be state, federal, county, whatever, don't have "rights." They have powers. It's a big difference -- human beings have rights because of natural law, or social acceptance, or convention; they aren't contingent and cannot be revoked. Government power is always contingent, even if they put guns to everyone's heads -- which is actually an indicator of a very weak government, not a powerful one.

Therefore Corporations can be given far more rights than the government.

Well said, loyal consumer! For your grassroots advocacy, you have earned an extra allotment of scrip to spend at the company store!

well... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386013)

What do the TeaTards say now?

They want corporations to have more power than government, but they paranoid about privacy.

As long a CEO does it then it must be all good.

Re:well... (-1, Offtopic)

MilwaukeeMadAss (2521372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386199)

TeaTards. Nice. Thank you for giving me an alternative to "#$@%& Tea Baggers"

Re:well... (0)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386279)

really? teatards is nice? what are you 7???

Re:well... (3, Informative)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386327)

You do realize that Chuck Schumer is a Democrat, right? Definitely not a Tea Party guy.

Fail

Re:well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386447)

What do the TeaTards say now?

He's a New York Democrat you dolt.

He has no authority (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386039)

Lynch the traitor

It's okay for the government to spy.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386059)

But if private companies want to spy, it's illegal. What a fucking hypocrisy we live in.

Re:It's okay for the government to spy.. (2)

Lisias (447563) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386893)

Government has powers to put anyone in jail.

Private companies can not hold their employees against their will.

This is hypocrisy too?

Same was said with a lot of tech (5, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386071)

GPS used to have a 1km fudge factor inserted into it to prevent people using it for terrorist activities.

Not that I'm entirely sure how I feel about Google using drones to improve Google Earth. If I have a privacy fence up... well, it's to protect my privacy. Taking pictures from a low flying drone isn't much different than leaning a ladder against the fence and climbing up to peer over. On the other hand, it's a one time thing (or at least rare) and the same viewing angle can be achieved any number of ways that people don't have a problem with (if nothing else manned aircraft). I think I'm actually going to have to think about this one a bit...

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386151)

I wouldn't want someone to be watching me in real-time, but I'd be ok with a snapshot of my property every few years - especially given the potential advantages.

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (2, Interesting)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386445)

What about someone's freedom to watch you real-time? You need to take appropriate measures to stop it by being on private property inside a building and away from windows. It is your responsibility to protect your privacy.

As mentioned in another window, wait for things like Google Glasses. Everything could be recorded everywhere. You can't make the glasses illegal. You can't make a law that says, "When technology is too good, it can't do this or that".

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (2)

Gription (1006467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386161)

It wasn't "to prevent people using it for terrorist activities". This was before the 911 "hide in your closet" era. They were protecting against foreign countries using the system.

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (4, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386267)

GPS used to have a 1km fudge factor inserted into it to prevent people using it for terrorist activities.

LOL rewriting history .mil always had the high precision codes, at least I/we did in the early 90s. I forget the nickname our handbag sized GPS receivers had, it was a long time ago. The main point was making sure our grunts on the ground could give their exact grid square to artillery support, but the other guys wouldn't have the tech. Eventually it became fairly pointless to restrict anymore, once everyone had cheap RX and it never really materialized as a tactical problem.

Also some concern about ICBM and cruise missile nav points.

It was never, until post 9/11 history rewriting, about terrorism.

To some extent, I can't figure out what to do from a terror standpoint with high accuracy GPS positions that wouldn't be just as scary with low precision.

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386537)

To some extent, I can't figure out what to do from a terror standpoint with high accuracy GPS positions that wouldn't be just as scary with low precision.

Why with that information terrorists could drop anthrax right down your AC duct from 20,000 feet!!!!

Or maybe not.

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386819)

That's why I put my hand over my mouth whenever I yawn outside! You never know what the terrorists might have access to.

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (2)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386779)

To some extent, I can't figure out what to do from a terror standpoint with high accuracy GPS positions that wouldn't be just as scary with low precision.

How unimaginative you are. High accuracy would enable you to fly a swarm of C4 laden RC planes into the center court of the Pentagon, or to the front doors of Congress.

I've read of plenty of battles where the opposing sides were a lot closer than one klick away from each other. Should the "fast movers" take out their guys, your guys, or does it matter?

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (4, Informative)

malakai (136531) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386917)

I think GP was talking about Selective Availability (SA). Basically an intentional error that limited accuracy of commercial GPS to 30-100m. It was turned off 5/2/2000. Ever since then we've had 95% 10m accuracy, but the DOD has the ability to selectively re-enable SA on individual satellites. The thought being, if we see a couple of cruise missiles ( or a missile boat ) within range of the US, we can disrupt GPS so it can't be used against us. As a defensive layer, this ability no longer packs the same punch as it did back in the day. Terrain contour matching ( TERCOM ) is cheap and 'easy' these days with the processors and power available to avionic packages. I don't doubt if you google for it, someone's built a TERCOM system for their hobby RC plane by now.

Either way, it wasn't about _terrorism_ so much as it was about nation vs nation war.

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (3, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386373)

I really fail to see how this should be treated any different than someone flying 100 ft or 10,000 ft over your house and looking down. Just because the camera is insanely better than a human eye and it can be stored perpetually should be inconsequential. If you want progress, you can't legislate technology. This is like Google driving around on public roads to take pictures and collect WiFi info. Just because they did it on a large scale shouldn't make it illegal. These arbitrary lines drawn by government (or people simply requesting them) are crazy.

When you have a neighbor, you put up a fence. If someone looks over the fence, too bad for you; build it higher. If someone flies over the top, put a roof up.

Wait until we have contact lenses like the Google Glasses. These arbitrary lines are going to stop innovation. You won't be able to use it because it can process too much information, when it would probably revolutionize society.

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (2, Interesting)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386785)

the thing is tech should always be "polite" when it has capabilities to this level.

I have no problems with a sat shot of my house every 9 months or so.

what i have a problem with is somebody filming my house 24/7/52

photo showing that my backyard has a pool = not a problem
film of my 5 year old daughter swimming in said pool = BIG PROBLEM

so your rights to film my property end at the point where my rights to forcefully defend said property.

(aka i need to be able to file an OPT OUT with you)

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (1)

No2Gates (239823) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386419)

And the fact that they are planning on "blurring out" the sensitive areas that could be targets for terrorists, it just makes it easier for them. Just map out the blurred out locations, then go there to see if they are worthwhile targets. Doesn't sound like much of a deterrent to me.

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386635)

Also there are any number of companies that will do aerial photography of properties for a fee.

Then again there are also a number of ways one can do their own aerial photography.

 

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (4, Informative)

oobayly (1056050) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386431)

You're thinking of Selective Availability [wikipedia.org] , which degraded precision giving errors of up to 100m, not 1,000m. As others said it was done to prevent foreign military from using the full capabilities of GPS,

As a bit of an anecdote, I remember my uncle complaining of how his GPS was inaccurate compared to the previous day whilest laying marks for some dinghy racing. I made a quip about the Americans probably bombing some country. That evening the news was full of pictures of Tomahawks being fired into Afganistan [wikipedia.org] . I became a bit more careful making facetious comments that day.

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386673)

When we did risk assessment grant application for the water utilities post 9/11, the retards at the EPA wanted to make a map of every location storing/using/transporting large quantites of Chlorine gas for water purification or other uses, and then were going ot put it online in the name of disclosure to the people.

We excluded the information from our package and advised we would only provide that information when we received a signed non-disclosure form and indemnification and certification that the same non-disclosure form and indemnification would be submitted to the owner by every persion accessing the data before we would deliver. Never got asked for the info again. The sounds of several thousand water utilities saying "not gonna happen" were loud and clear. Got the grant, did the risk assessment, designed the systems, applied for the bonds, installed the project, happy safe customers.

The information is already out there, anyone who assumes otherwise is an idiot.

Re:Same was said with a lot of tech (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386743)

GPS used to have a 1km fudge factor inserted into it to prevent people using it for terrorist activities.

Hahaha, no.

GPS used to have a "fudge factor" (Selective Availability) of around 100 meters, not a kilometer. And it wasn't to "prevent people using it for terrorist activities", it was to give the U.S. military troops a technological edge on the ground in foreign countries. Terrorism wasn't even a concern then. SA was turned off because there wasn't a point to keeping it on and lots of benefits to turning it off. It made operations with other military nations more difficult and newer developments meant that they could now selectively degrade or turn off GPS entirely for specific regions should the need ever arise. Plus it was clear that Europe and Russia would develop their own GPS equivalents anyway (and they have, with China, India and Japan also joining the fray).

What's good for the goose... (3, Insightful)

Revvy (617529) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386073)

Senator Schumer,

You seem to be arguing that drone usage by private companies violates the privacy and/or security of the American public. Many people agree with that. Additionally, many people agree that drone usage by Law Enforcement Agencies and US Federal Agencies also violates the privacy and/or security of the American public.

I find it hypocritical, then, that you would simultaneously support the use of armed drones in the US by Federal Agencies and Law Enforcement while objecting to unarmed drone use by private enterprise. Perhaps I'm not understanding your position clearly. Perhaps, and I believe this to be more likely, I am.

-----
Your lips are moving.

Re:What's good for the goose... (0)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386255)

I was just about to post the exact same thing.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386287)

You're certainly not understanding much at all. There's a very simple example to use, and if you can't understand it, there's no point in trying further:

It is illegal for a private individual to imprison somebody. With proper safeguards and oversight though, we allow the government to conduct a whole legal process that includes such actions.

Not saying there's no abuse possible, or no excesses in the current system, but aside from a few extremists at the margins, I don't see anybody absolutely and dogmatically opposed to the concept of imprisonment as a way to dealing with criminals.

Just with certain aspects of it. But heck, just because I want to improve people's driving doesn't mean I don't want them driving.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386369)

It is illegal for a private individual to imprison somebody. With proper safeguards and oversight though, we allow the government to conduct a whole legal process that includes such actions.

A seriously flawed analogy, given the fact that the drones do little more than the eyes of pedestrians already do, i.e., that they see things. Or do you suggest that opening our eyes in public spaces should be prohibited as well for everyone except law enforcement officials? I predict a sudden increase in traffic accidents.

Re:What's good for the goose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386555)

Actually, no. Citizen's arrest and parental rights are just two of the ways that a private individual can imprison someone.

If you don't want Google doing what any person with a hot air balloon or even a house that is taller than yours can do, put up a sun shade.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386309)

Military use of drones is necessary to keep people safe and to fight crime. Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.

Private business use of drones is not necessary for either of these purposes, and is instead used to grant some convienence that end-users don't actually require, and possibly to support regional advertising. These goals are not worth the violation of privacy.

Does that clear things up?

Re:What's good for the goose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386517)

Military use of drones is necessary to keep governments safe and to fight crime.

FTFY

And should the military be fighting crime in the first place?

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386853)

And should the military be fighting crime in the first place?

Generally yes.

The US has a rather negative history with its military, so it has a series of laws written from a perspective that no longer applies. Lots of other countries are happy to use special forces and paramilitary police units in both capacities, including the UK, Germany, France, etc.

For them, the sorts of problems they faced, including major terrorist activities with a local ish population and decent funding meant that using the police became unreasonable. So they used the army, or their legal system is just different and they have quasi paramilitary units that do policing work. If you view the role of police to be catching thieves and investigating crime then you can legitimately view the role of the military as being to fight enemies of the state, whether they also fall under the realm of criminal or not.

Look at is this way, if Mexico, Spain and leftists in south america had been funding an insurgency and moving insurgents into the southern US you'd have a very different view of the role of law enforcement versus the army than the US currently does. It's not so much that the US is wrong, it's just relatively rare that it has a problem that really warrants the army, though I suppose the entire concept of SWAT teams is redundant with the army. For other countries, who've been dealing with these sorts of problems for hundreds of years (Northern Ireland, Algeria, ETA in spain etc.) they've come up with solutions that involve using the military. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, as long as the military is trained for it, and appropriately commanded. You couldn't easily have the US army operate domestically tomorrow anymore than you could ask police in the UK to do the job of the SAS tomorrow.

Re:What's good for the goose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386529)

"Military use of drones is necessary to keep people safe"

AHAHAHAHAHAHA Wow, man. Just wow. You deserve the dystopia you're cruising towards

Re:What's good for the goose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386581)

Your definition of necessary is suspect.

You've yet to prove how drones keep people safe. Allow people in power to retain yet more power, yes. Safety? How?

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386711)

How did we keep safe and fight crime before drones existed?

Re:What's good for the goose... (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386739)

Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.

Is it? I don't see that as intrinsically true. There are many situations where a violation of privacy would increase crime and put people in danger. In any case, it is a matter for society to decide, not some anonymous individual on a website.

Re:What's good for the goose... (2)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386909)

Keeping people safe and fighting crime is worth the violation of privacy.

No, they're not. They can be done without violating anyone's privacy, as everyone knows. We've been doing it for a very long time.

Re:What's good for the goose... (4, Insightful)

Mr 44 (180750) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386475)

Chuck Schumer is one of the biggest pro-government control-freak assholes in congress. He has no qualms bending logic, twisting and lying to spin whatever propoganda he needs to in order to advance his agenda. He has never met a law he didn't like, and works to restrict freedom with his every move.

This is only latest in a decades long series of moves by him.

See:
Chuck Schumer vs. Free Speech [wsj.com]

Schumer Among Biggest Supporters of Anti-Piracy Laws [patch.com] (He was a co-sponsor of SOPA and PIPA)

Schumer's racket: Lobbyists and hedge funds [washingtonexaminer.com]

Schumer proposes new federal regulations on grill brushes [motorcitytimes.com]

And since the above links are all pretty recent, here's some Schumer history: [talkleft.com]

On the eve of the first anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing in April, 1996, Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The Democrats were very disappointed, however, because the bill passed without proposed expansions of wiretapping authority. In May 1996, Reps. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI) introduced H.R. 3409 "to combat domestic terrorism."

The bill, titled the "Effective Anti-Terrorism Tools for Law Enforcement Act of 1996," would expand the powers granted to the FBI to engage in multi- point (roving) wiretaps and emergency wiretaps without court orders, and to access an individual's hotel and vehicle and storage facility rental records. It also relaxed the requirements for obtaining pen register and trap and trace orders in foreign intelligence investigations.

Re:What's good for the goose... (2)

DCFusor (1763438) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386937)

I wish whoever votes for this asshat would start voting differently. He's completely central-statist and elitist. You left out the anti-gun stuff above BTW.

Re:What's good for the goose... (0)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386493)

Private companies like Google are profiting from you! If you own alot of land, Google will profit by providing details maps, so someone of interest can look at your property.

It's all military grade, or better (5, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386111)

Nice grandstanding. Have you seen the Planet Earth series? I'd say that's probably better than "military grade" video. Actually, there's a lot of stuff out there better than military grade. Get over it.

Aside from being able to map out things from the comfort of your Abbottabad living room using a single source instead of doing regular old recon (it's not hard, or particularly obvious), there's no change except a perceptual one. He is correct that it is effectively impossible to secure every location. A better plan would be to build in the redundancy that should have been there in the first place. If my power goes out - way out in the country - for a week, it sucks to be me, but the 30,000 of us can manage. If power to the east coast goes out for a week, that's really, really bad. Perhaps you should consider a more robust system that is less prone to single point failures?

Re:It's all military grade, or better (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386345)

Agreed on how much this will do against terrorism. I'd love to see some more redundancy in our power system as well, but some things are difficult to make redundant, and can wreak havoc beyond the power aspect. What would bringing down the Hoover dam do to the surrounding area? About two dozen shaped charges in a circle, and I'm not sure the dam will be able to hold.

I'm a bit more concerned about the privacy implications. Low-flying drones can spot a lot more in my backyard - or an atrium, if I had one - than the Google car can do from the street. Finally, they might get themselves into legal trouble, as land-owners generally have air rights. I'm just curious what will happen when someone decides to assert it when they get a perfect overhead shot of their property. Or, if they want to get fancy, prove via basic trigonometry that the angled shot had to have been taken from above their property.

Re:It's all military grade, or better (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386479)

Landowners have air rights? Citation needed.

Re:It's all military grade, or better (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386593)

Here [legalflip.com] and here [wikipedia.org] . It'll come down to how low the drones are flying, and whether taking pictures of your backyard constitute some sort of trespassing. I'd be curious to find out if there ever was a case brought against some Ultra-light or single-engine Cessna pilot for invasion of privacy, trespassing or something similar.

Re:It's all military grade, or better (1)

stiggle (649614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386793)

You have rights to the air above your land as far up as you can occupy or use - depending upon local zoning regulations.
You can also sue anyone who tresspasses in your airspace, so you could probably sue Google with their low flying drone at 200', but not American Airlines at 40,000'

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/airspace-right-lawyers.html [legalmatch.com]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19460601&id=eBoaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NCUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2585,35429 [google.com]

Re:It's all military grade, or better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386531)

The case of Google Inc. vs. Henry Smith.
Opening arguments:
Google: the defendant stole and damaged our property, we are willing to overlook the damages if he simply returns the device.
Henry: it was flying over my land, and there is no restriction on hunting remote-controlled aircraft on your own property in this state.

Re:It's all military grade, or better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386835)

Remember, the bouncing bombs that busted the dams in WWII were rather large (>1000 lbs). Punching a bit of a hole in Hoover Dam would be difficult these days, as the water level in it is pretty low. It's a concrete gravity arch dam, and having driven across it, well... you do the math. Since one can't drive across it now, there goes the stupid way (encased 1 ton ANFO bomb in a truck that crashes into the water, and bomb detonates about 30-40' below the water surface).

Good luck with that.

Land owners have air rights? Not really. There are FAA regulations prohibiting flight below certain AGL limit, but air rights? No, definitely not.

f*ck chuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386135)

tired of dumb congressmen grandstanding.

He's completely right (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386191)

"[I]f highly detailed images become available... [then] it would be impossible to secure every location."

This is completely true, in the same sense that if I stand on my head right now, the sun will rise tomorrow. I'm glad to see Mr. Schumer is aware of both the impossibility of securing every location, and the basics of formal logic.

Re:He's completely right (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386393)

Moreover, I fail to see how exactly is it not impossible to secure every location today. If it is, in fact, impossible even today, the argument that it will impossible tomorrow with the drones seems irrelevant.

I want... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386223)

a federal law stating we have a general right of privacy.

Things to be included, but not limited to, would be...
  A right to not have detailed arial imagery of one's private real property upon request. (You should be able to sunbath nude without worry that someone will post high-resolution images somewhere.) I say "upon request" because it seems infeasible to have it opt-in these days.
  A right to remain anonymous until criminal conviction (the time between arrest and conviction, name and photo should remain private as not to potentially tarnish a person's good name).
  A right to medical privacy. (Not sure how this would work, but I'm sure there are issues.)
Etc.

Re:I want... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386477)

A right to remain anonymous until criminal conviction (the time between arrest and conviction, name and photo should remain private as not to potentially tarnish a person's good name).

So do you want closed courtrooms: no transparency, thus no faith in the justice system? Or you just want defendants to wear a bag over your head?

Oooohh, let me guess... you just want one more way the government can impose prior restraint on free speech?

Now I know (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386261)

Now I know how Streisand felt.

Up up in the air (1)

mwfischer (1919758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386277)

First off his daughter the comic is kind of hot. ..now actually on topic I would demand that my area be removed from a paper map. What he is trying to say but failed miserably because he's both old and not knowing what he's talking about on a technical level is where is the cut-off line between information and privacy. If I go outside, I can see homes. If I look on a map, not really. If I look on Google Maps, I can see a birds eye view of things.

Also.. wasn't Microsoft Flight Sim to blame for 9/11 training or some junk like that? I mean really?

Re:Up up in the air (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386815)

If I go outside, I can see homes. If I look on a map, not really.

Depends on the map. Good topo maps will show buildings.

repost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386293)

from yesterday.

Sieg Heil, Herr Schumer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386319)

Sieg Heil!

Military Grade Bullshit (1)

Grudge2012 (2662391) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386335)

People have been using aerial photography to make maps for decades. There is absolutely nothing special (nor "military grade") about them.

i never post here but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386367)

this guy is an asshole

Bullshit! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386663)

You post here all the time!

Re:Bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386761)

Why are you replying to yourself?

Wait, that is me too, why am I replying to myself in this way?

No toys for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386377)

Yeah, only DHS can have spy planes!

Schumer (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386413)

Schumer doesn't give a rat's behind about privacy. What he cares about is calling attention to himself so that he can go on bullying the private sector from his imperial senate seat

Its not military grade (1)

bored (40072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386439)

If civilian companies have them.

Especially if those companies don't have any military ties.

This is the same reason my GPU isn't a military grade device.

And this would deter who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386473)

The hobbiest criminal who isn't so dedicated as to get of their arse and physically recon a target?

Dickhead! Get a job you bath-dodging chav!

Location is not protected (1)

jcronen (325664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386533)

Location is specifically not protected [ferc.gov] as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII).

This does not mean that location is necessarily public information to be provided by the government, but FERC specifically sought to keep the location of particular bits of infrastructure out of that data which is considered confidential.

If Schumer has a beef, he should bring it up with FERC.

Moron (1)

jimmy_dean (463322) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386539)

"[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States. With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location."

Right...because today, every square inch of the undocumented US infrastructure is completely secure. /sarcasm

huh? (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386543)

so the kinds of criminals that would know what to do with maps of infrastructure are too lazy or stupid or broke to get that information until google or apple provides it to them. would those maps make it easier for them? sure. just like a vehicle would help them getaway or a cell phone would help them communicate with each other, or a computer would help them plan a crime, or the weather channel would help them choose what day to commit a crime, etc.

And No "Democrats" Tag? (1, Troll)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386565)

Whenever someone from the Republican party does something stupid, the article is instantly slapped with a "Republicans" tag. When a Democrat does something stupid... It's just one person being stupid.

Re:And No "Democrats" Tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386693)

Not at all.

Every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth, I blame her for the stupid things she says, not the Republican Party.

Re:And No "Democrats" Tag? (1, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386795)

That's probably because the entire Republican Party has been trying to outdo itself for years in saying stupid things to attract fringe votes and big donors, and it is organized and disciplined about staying on message.

"Organized" and "disciplined" are /not/ things that one can say about their opposition, so it's really just Chuck Schumer being an ignorant ass.

Re:And No "Democrats" Tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386859)

Just give up, you will be ignored and/or insulted. At best someone will rationalize it without insulting you.

Re:And No "Democrats" Tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386897)

Whenever someone from the Republican party does something stupid, the article is instantly slapped with a "Republicans" tag. When a Democrat does something stupid... It's just one person being stupid.

Good point... why aren't people tagging articles with "republicansaredumb" instead?

Of course he wants Apple and Google to stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40386569)

Because the government hates competition when it comes to domestic spying.

FFS (1)

organgtool (966989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386617)

I don't think it's possible to support privacy more than I do. But if you step foot outside of your living space, you have entered a public area. You may be seen by other people, your conversation can be overheard, and people are free to record your image and conversation via photographs, video recordings, or audio recordings. If you do not like this, you are free to refrain from leaving your living space or wear a disguise when you go out.

4inches (4, Funny)

I Read Good (2348294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386639)

FTA: "...Google and Apple have upgraded their capabilities to aircraft-based photography that can see through windows and capture detailed images with four-inch resolution."

Four-inch resolution? I guess I don't have anything to worry about!

Scare Away Freedom (1)

hemo_jr (1122113) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386751)

I am tired of sensationalizing politicians and the government using the fear of terrorism, or even perversion as an excuse to curtail freedom.

"Curb You're Drones" Eh? (4, Interesting)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40386813)

You first, Chucky!

Yet another mealy-mouthed, two-faced, lying, dinosaur of a career politician that should be swinging from the end of a rope instead of being in a position of government power.

A Google drone might spot a greenhouse in my backyard and target horticultural product ads at me. The horror!

A government drone might spot the same greenhouse and target a SWAT raid on me. Or a Hellfire missile.

If Chucky and his TLA buddies can fly a drone over me, I should be able to fly a drone over Chucky & friends.

Maybe an open-source drone project for civilians to counter the governments domestic drone spying with their own spy drones? I bet a few civilian drones buzzing over these politician's own homes and offices would get some attention.

And if the government decides to severely restrict civilian drone use while giving free reign to TLA/LEO drones, maybe my experience with designing military missile & torpedo guidance/targeting systems could find civilian counter-applications.

Strat

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>