Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

France Cries Foul At World Cup "Spy Drone"

Unknown Lamer posted about a month ago | from the but-did-it-have-a-vuvuzela dept.

Privacy 138

mpicpp (3454017) writes with news of amateur drones appearing at the World Cup, quoting Ars Technica: "France's World Cup soccer team has filed a complaint with FIFA, claiming that someone used a small unmanned aircraft to spy on the team's training camp near São Paulo, Brazil as players prepared for their match against Honduras Sunday, the BBC reports. The quadrocopter appears from video to be a Phantom II autonomous micro-drone with a video camera.

'Apparently, drones are being used more and more,' France's manager Didier Deschamps told the BBC. 'We don't want intrusion into our privacy. It's hard to fight.' Deschamps did not comment on who might be behind the surveillance but said in an interview with Football Italia that he believed the drone was operated by one of France's potential opponents or by a French news agency."
Police later captured the drone operator, who claimed just to be a fan bitten by a bit too much curiosity.

cancel ×

138 comments

Down with the capitalist world cup of repression! (0)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a month ago | (#47252333)

Down with Dilma's popular front of racist anti-working class massacres! Brazilian troops out of Haiti and out of the favelas! For a revolutionary workers party!!!!

A taste of things to come? (4, Insightful)

jargonburn (1950578) | about a month ago | (#47252347)

I like my privacy.
In many ways, I would like to say "shoot the damn thing!" but depending on local laws that could get ugly. This camp was private property and closed to the public, right?

Still, there must be some way to deter such drones. Capture, and release after disabling the camera? If the drone gets damaged during the capture...well...C'est la vie!

Of course, if it's not private property, my level of sympathy would decrease greatly.

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252417)

A drone is more like a telescopic lens camera and a directional antenna pointed at you - so even in the public space there are issues imho.

Re:A taste of things to come? (4, Insightful)

CaptQuark (2706165) | about a month ago | (#47252669)

I wish people would stop using the word "Drone" unless it is a truly autonomous vehicle. What this was is a Remote Controlled quadcopter operated by a fan that wanted to watch their practice session.

Arial photography is used in many situations. A traffic helicopter, a blimp at sporting events, small planes, balloons, and even kites have been used to capture pictures and video from the air. (Kite photography circa 1889 http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff... [ucsb.edu] )

If the fan had been in a tall office building next to the practice field instead, would this have been news?

I agree that the use of toy helicopters to carry cameras is a new concern for some people, but stop using the word "drone" just to sensationalize it.

~~

Re:A taste of things to come? (5, Informative)

Molt (116343) | about a month ago | (#47252695)

The use of the word drone to describe these is correct.

The Oxford English Dictionary includes the definition for a Drone as 'A pilotless aircraft or missile directed by remote control', a use that dates back at least to 1946 ("The Navy's drones will be..led—by radio control, of course—to a landing field at Roi."). There's no definition listed for a completely autonomous unit.

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about a month ago | (#47253515)

It is accurate and misleading at the same time. People think of drones as military style drones while small RC aircraft are usually called RC models and have been for decades. The AMA is not happy about the use of word drone because they have had a very good relationship with the FAA up till now.
As to RC aircraft with cameras. I remember reading about people putting cameras on RC planes back in the 70s. Of course that was in the days of film.

This was a guy with radio control quad or a guy with a drone depending if you want to be scary or not.

Re:A taste of things to come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253617)

There is a reason dictionaries change.

Re:A taste of things to come? (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month ago | (#47252803)

Arial photography is used in many situations.

Yet many people despise it. I blame it on typography elitism.

Re:A taste of things to come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252807)

If the fan had been in a tall office building next to the practice field instead, would this have been news?

Teams can account for tall office buildings when choosing a venue to hold a private practice. Thay cannot account for random flyovers.

Re:A taste of things to come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253125)

Phantom 2 has GPS and can fly autonomously although its not that common

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

rvw (755107) | about a month ago | (#47253189)

I wish people would stop using the word "Drone" unless it is a truly autonomous vehicle.

Do you want to say the drones the US sends to bomb the Taliban are not drones? I'm quite certain they are controlled by someone in the US. Maybe they can find their way back to safety if the connection is lost, but they are in no way autonomous. In that definition a V2 or Tomahawk is a drone, and everybody agrees that they are not.

Re:A taste of things to come? (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a month ago | (#47253401)

I wish people would stop using the word "Drone" unless it is a truly autonomous vehicle. What this was is a Remote Controlled quadcopter operated by a fan that wanted to watch their practice session.

Drones are not a truly autonomous vehicle, but I agree that the word "Drone" is being misused. I believe that "R/C Aircraft" is to "Drone" like "boat" is to "ship".

You wouldn't call an aircraft carrier a boat, and you wouldn't call a dinghy a ship. Same could be said about small R/C planes not being called "Drones" and the Predator Drone not being called a "R/C Aircraft". Technically Ships are a boat and Drones are R/C aircraft but their size and capability justify the different terminology.

Just my two cents.

Re:A taste of things to come? (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a month ago | (#47253729)

I wish people would stop using the word "arial" unless they're referring to a font.

Re:A taste of things to come? (2)

Splab (574204) | about a month ago | (#47252419)

Even if you are in public, local laws might prevent you from snapping away; usually people must have the ability to opt out of their picture being taken, which is pretty easy, when someone is pointing a camera at you, however, when a drone flies by, it's next to impossible.

The other day I was stalked by a drone in a park, which I must say, is rather unsettling, don't really care about it taking pictures, but those propellers are aggressive and when the drone is only 2 meters from your head, you do start to wonder, just how good are those guys at handling it...

No, you don't have an opt out. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252531)

I don't know who told you this, but they were wrong. When you're out in public anyone may take your photo at any time and they may distribute that photo to whoever they wish, and they may even exhibit that photo. What they may not do, and why there are release forms and models, is ever use your public photo to advertise a product or advance a political agenda [unless you were actively participating in a political action of some type in the photo]. They also must be careful about the context, for if they slander you in any manner that is not true, then you have a case against them. Of course the photo has next to nothing to do with it except to identify you.

Imagine if you had a perfect family photo and some asshole insisted you delete it because he happened to walk into the frame? Fortunately, you never have to. There's a lot of misinformation out there on this subject and in the past that was largely harmless, but with personal cameras having wings now it may be time for an awareness campaign of some type.

Property rights are another matter. With respect to airspace and the U.S. cause to hell with Brazil, it's something to take up with the FAA.

Re:No, you don't have an opt out. (5, Informative)

Splab (574204) | about a month ago | (#47252561)

You know how people know you are a true 'Murican?

Did you miss the part about local laws? This drone was in Brazil and I'm talking about the laws I know, which is Danish law - if you take a picture in Denmark, they can ask you to remove it and you must comply.

Just because you feel like your picture is important, doesn't mean some random stranger wants to be in on it.

Also, if the subject happens to be a model by trade, they can by local law sue you for the damages to their brand, if the picture you took end up on the internet (there are some exceptions to this). Again local law.

Re:No, you don't have an opt out. (4, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about a month ago | (#47253195)

This drone was in Brazil and I'm talking about the laws I know, which is Danish law - if you take a picture in Denmark, they can ask you to remove it and you must comply.

Apparently, you don't know your own laws:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a month ago | (#47253177)

Even if you are in public, local laws might prevent you from snapping away; usually people must have the ability to opt out of their picture being taken

Not in the US, and not in many Western nations.

You have a right to prevent the commercial use of your picture and you have a legal right to prohibit publication of pictures of you that mislead or defame.

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252513)

In many ways, I would like to say "shoot the damn thing!" but depending on local laws that could get ugly. This camp was private property and closed to the public, right?

While it is probably still illegal you could use paintball or soft air guns to mess with it. A stray bullet won't be as problematic.
The cooler option would be a counter drone with a spray paint can.
Can't take any pictures if the lens is bright orange.

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a month ago | (#47252593)

"The cooler option would be a counter drone with a spray paint can."

It would take some very skillful flying to spray paint the camera without colliding with the drone

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a month ago | (#47252981)

Nah, just use a high-pressure spray gun and paint the whole drone to get the camera.

Re:A taste of things to come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252859)

Laser pointers is the easier option. Just keep shining pointers at the drone - its camera getting more and more dark pixels. Instantly too low quality for broadcasting, soon enough too bad for youtube . . .

A counter drone might be fun. I wouldn't bother with spray paint though. Have the drone pull a long piece of string, or even a light net. Try to entangle the other drone's propellers.

Re:A taste of things to come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252539)

I see a bright future for homemade radio scrambling devices. It's not that hard to make.

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

gsslay (807818) | about a month ago | (#47252651)

I think it's unlikely that France would be training for the World Cup at the local public park.

Re:A taste of things to come? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252699)

I like my privacy.

In many ways, I would like to say "shoot the damn thing!" but depending on local laws that could get ugly. This camp was private property and closed to the public, right?

Still, there must be some way to deter such drones. Capture, and release after disabling the camera? If the drone gets damaged during the capture...well...C'est la vie!

Of course, if it's not private property, my level of sympathy would decrease greatly.

Given the fact that gravity exists, I'd say your level of ignorance is the only thing you need to be worried about being elevated.

What goes up must come down, and I'd love to know how you feel when someone is killed by the bullet used to "shoot the damn thing!". Local laws won't clear your conscience, and these aren't exactly events that are sparsely populated.

Re:A taste of things to come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252873)

Depends on the angle of the shot. If you shoot almost straight up, the bullet won't be so fast when coming down. It'll be more like "ouch, who tossed the pebble at me?". You can reduce the risk further by using a shotgun. I'd worry more about damage from the falling drone. Heavy, and possibly with some intact propellers still spinning.

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252895)

I don't think you appreciate the magnitude of terminal velocity for a falling bullet.

Re:A taste of things to come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253377)

That's an extremely unlikely scenario, fool. Might as well stop driving a car, as that's more dangerous.

Re:A taste of things to come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252757)

Lasers.

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a month ago | (#47253025)

If the drone gets damaged during the capture...well...C'est la vie!

C'est la guerre would be much more appropriate. Celebrity security bodyguards will be soon be toting long range bird guns to ensure their customers' privacy.

I'd personally recommend a Browning BPS 10 gauge with Tungsten Super Shot loads.

Re:A taste of things to come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253151)

It may or may not be private property, but it is almost certainly not private property of the French team.

Re:A taste of things to come? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253285)

Does private property include the air space above it? I'm in favor of privacy as well, I just don't know whether land ownership extends to the air space above the land. If the violator climbed a tree from an adjacent lot and used a telephoto lens, would it be illegal? Celebrities are victims of such snooping all the time, in fact there is an entire industry dedicated to such snooping that they both try to use to their benefit as well as complain about. In addition, I don't see how destroying the drone wouldn't be destroying private property. You park your car on a public street, someone vandalizes it. They are guilty of property destruction. I guess it all depends upon whether property rights include the air space above your property. Perhaps this is all more legally complicated than first indicated...

microwave zapping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253425)

I like my privacy.

In many ways, I would like to say "shoot the damn thing!" but depending on local laws that could get ugly. [...]
Still, there must be some way to deter such drones. [...]

Microwave guns perhaps?

Most of electronics will get fried and force the device to go down, but there aren't any trajectories as the beam will travel in a straight line, so you don't have to worry about collateral damage (besides where the drone goes down perhaps).

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a month ago | (#47253453)

I observed during an ARRL field day many years ago that if you want to stop small R/C aircraft from operating near you, simply tune an antenna and begin operating a high powered 6 meter transmitter. The planes will eventually crash into something or fly away from you.

Conversely, never host a R/C aircraft event and an amateur radio event at the same park at the same time.

Re:A taste of things to come? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about a month ago | (#47253537)

simple get another quad and hang a net from it. Fly it above the offending quad and tangle the props and land with it.
In the US you own the airspace up to about 500 feet over your land so it should be completely legal if done safely. AKA don't do it over people.

Other consequences (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a month ago | (#47252361)

They are still at $1000 but once these toys fall below a tenth of that price, some things will have to change.

It will start with laws to regulate their possession and fines for illicit uses, but it will also promote a business of countermeasures.

Nude beaches, celebrity mansions, "secret" open air activities or even high end hotels that want to guarantee some degree of privacy to their customers, will want a way to block their use.

Whoever knows how to make an anti-drone device better patent it quickly and put it on Amazon for hundreds of bucks. Clients will soon come.

Re:Other consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252391)

Whoever knows how to make an anti-drone device better patent it quickly and put it on Amazon for hundreds of bucks. Clients will soon come.

Here you go:

http://www.amazon.com/Gamo-Rifle-Platinum-Pellets-Caliber/dp/B004WMFX22/ref=sr_1_4?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1402990458&sr=1-4

Re:Other consequences (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month ago | (#47252817)

Too difficult to aim, unless you equip it with something like a gun data computer. What about a directional broad-band jammer?

Re:Other consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252453)

I am sorry, but what does nude beaches have to do with person being shy about his/her body?

Nude beaches are surrounded by walls not because they don't want anyone to see them, but people around them don't want to see them.

So if someone wants to go to nude beaches, he/she is accepting that others can see.

If you don't want to others to see you nude, then you go alone to somewhere else where no one else can see you.
But some western people feels more disgusting seeing other person naked. Seeing a breast or penis or just ass is like NO NO for many Americans unless they have problem with their own sexuality.

Re:Other consequences (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a month ago | (#47252707)

Seeing does not equate recording and publishing on the internet.

What do you think would be the result of someone going to a nude beach and record everyone with a gopro? Well, the drone would be the same thing but less reachable.

Re:Other consequences (3, Insightful)

mrvan (973822) | about a month ago | (#47252721)

This is an important part of the story. Public decency laws, and nude beaches as an official exception to them, are not there to protect the nude people, they're there to protect the prude from the nude.

The sad truth is, however, that while being nude at a nude beach is OK, having a picture taken of you and distributed outside that context is not OK. For one thing, it violates my feeling of privacy more than a picture of me walking in the park (I guess there is still a remnant of prudishness there), but it can also damage my reputation and social standing among people who dislike nudity. Thus, it makes perfect sense to be stricter about taking and distributing pictures from nude beaches, just like there is a distinction between taking a picture of me in my front garden (maybe ok?), sunbathing in my back garden (less ok), watching television in my living room (bad) and having fun in the bedroom or bathroom (really bad).

(Note also that most people don't go to nude beaches because they're exhibitionist: they go there because it is much nicer to sunbathe and swim without swimming gear. If you've never swum naked, you should really try it one day, it's a world of difference)

Re:Other consequences (3, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about a month ago | (#47252905)

There is still the common misconception that having windows in your bedroom allows the guy across the street to record and broadcasting everything happening inside. And there is still the common misconception that me publishing a picture of me allows you to publish all the pictures you have of me.

This could be called the Facebook fallacy. "Some people publish intime details about themselves on Facebook, thus everyone is allowed to record and publish every intime detail about everyone in the world."

Re:Other consequences (1)

swillden (191260) | about a month ago | (#47253277)

There is still the common misconception that having windows in your bedroom allows the guy across the street to record and broadcasting everything happening inside.

It depends on the jurisdiction, of course, but at least in the US if your curtains are open, and the window is positioned so that the interior of your bedroom is visible from the street, and close enough that no magnification is required, it's perfectly legal for the guy across the street to record and broadcast what is visible to the public. He can't use it commercially (essentially, in advertising) without a model release, and if it constitutes explicit pornography he has to have a release that also asserts that all of the "actors" are over 18.

Outside of that... yes, he can record and broadcast whatever is visible to the public, even if that happens to include your bedroom. If you don't like that, close your curtains.

Of course, using a quad-copter mounted camera gains visibility of areas which are not expected to be visible to the public, so this argument doesn't really bear on the case here. Or nude beaches.

Re:Other consequences (2)

Buchenskjoll (762354) | about a month ago | (#47252455)

I most civilized countries the use of fire arms for this purpose would be illegal. Just make protection drones that force the intruding drones down. It would be fun to watch the drone wars.

Re:Other consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252511)

I most civilized countries the use of fire arms for this purpose would be illegal. Just make protection drones that force the intruding drones down. It would be fun to watch the drone wars.

And crazy expensive.

Re:Other consequences (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a month ago | (#47252527)

Squads of boomerang throwing 'security specialists'. ;)
Kite fighters whose fighting kits have a special 'fringe' hanging from them that will get tangled in rotors if they get too close.
(Yes, Kite fighting is a thing, has been for a really long time, it's just not popular in most of the world.)
Your own remote controlled aircraft that drops shiny colorful celebratory strands that can conveniently get tangled in rotors.
A horde of people with lasers desperately trying to play with imaginary flying kitties. Do not use on manned aircraft.

I'm sure there are lots of other methods to intentionally or 'accidentally' mess with unwanted aerial surveillance.

Re:Other consequences (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252673)

I most civilized countries the use of fire arms for this purpose would be illegal. Just make protection drones that force the intruding drones down. It would be fun to watch the drone wars.

http://www.hybridsme.com

Re:Other consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252657)

What kind of countermeasures can you use against a drone in a populated area? RF blocking? GPS Jamming? Using a high powered laser to fry the optics? A Tunguska?

Counter Drone Drone?

Re:Other consequences (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a month ago | (#47252883)

How about a big net?
Couple of flagpoles, fine mesh between them. Drone cameras move fast - it'd be impossible to avoid if you don't know it's there, and very hard even if you do.

hmm (-1, Flamebait)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | about a month ago | (#47252371)

How long before they surrender?
Cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Re:hmm (0)

Threni (635302) | about a month ago | (#47252407)

Hey, this isn't Vietnam we're talking about! At least France surrendered to an army!

Re:hmm (0)

rossdee (243626) | about a month ago | (#47252619)

Who was driven out of Vietnam before the US came along

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252545)

France had the courage to declare war against a bigger country.

Re:hmm (0)

Zedrick (764028) | about a month ago | (#47252557)

Isn't this joke getting a bit old? Sure, US education isn't exactly the best in the world, and it was fun to see Groundskeeper Willie and various US politicians show off their ignorance during the "weapons of mass destruction"- campaign 20 years ago. But far from all americans are this stupid, and it's a bit unfair to continue bashing them every time France is in the news.

Re:hmm (0)

gsslay (807818) | about a month ago | (#47252659)

Never under-estimate the depth of stupidity on the internet. Or forum contributors' willingness to dredge and recycle it.

Simple answer (1, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a month ago | (#47252415)

Don't play foozball outside. Duh.

French privacy laws are quite different (5, Informative)

evilandi (2800) | about a month ago | (#47252443)

It's worth noting why the French team in particular, so vehemently object to drones, in a way that other nationals might not, or at least might do so less outspokenly.

In France you have ownership of your own image. A photographer needs to have your permission if they want to take a photo that has you as the main subject.

Obviously they don't need permission if you're just an incidental bystander or a face in a crowd. But if you're one of the primary subjects, then in France, you have to give your permission.

This also applies to merchandising and the law is often used in a similar way to trademarking or endorsement.

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (-1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a month ago | (#47252475)

France is backwards in lots of ways. How do you have ownership of the photons i collect? Crazy Frogs.

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252523)

Why should you have ownership of atoms that have been in nature millions of years before you were born? (i.e. any form of physical property).

Human rules and law have nothing to do with how things work in the physics world, but with how people think about them.

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252597)

Property rights derive from use of force. A country owns land because it can and does defend it against invasions.
A private citizen of a country owns land, in a lesser sense, because the government that really owns it has agreed to honor that claim and enforces it through the use of police power and the legal system.

If you look at the nonhuman world of wild animals, you will see some are territorial. They enforce a property right in the same manner that a sovereign country would.

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252623)

Property rights derive from use of force. A country owns land because it can and does defend it against invasions.
A private citizen of a country owns land, in a lesser sense, because the government that really owns it has agreed to honor that claim and enforces it through the use of police power and the legal system.

Thus you have answered the original question - "How do you have ownership of the photons i collect?".

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252683)

Property rights derive from use of force. A country owns land because it can and does defend it against invasions.

So a country with no armed forces does not have any property rights over its soil?

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a month ago | (#47252889)

It has them until a country with armed forces says otherwise.

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252941)

Humanity owns land because it defends it against other species. A country owns land, in a lesser sense, because the species that really owns it honors that claim.

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253447)

Why should you have ownership of atoms that have been in nature millions of years before you were born? (i.e. any form of physical property).

Owning private property allows you to modify, use, and do anything with things that are yours. No one else can come and break or use your property without permission without breaking laws. This means you can get work done and enjoy the things that are 'yours' without being threatened by others. It's very useful, and harms no one.

Saying I can't take a picture of you, though, makes no sense whatsoever. That doesn't cause any harm to anyone or anything. If you disagree, then your definition of "harm" is flawed.

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252575)

How do you have ownership of the photons i collect?

Well, I'm only claiming ownership of the photons that bounced on my body (or were emitted by it -- I used to live near a nuclear plant).
You can therefore take any photo you want provided you do not interact with /my/ photons.

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253279)

You emit all those photons. There's no "bouncing" of photons when a subject is illuminated by a light source. A photon is absorbed, then radiated. Your atoms are rather intimately involved in all of this.

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252643)

Stupid americunts.

French privacy laws are quite different (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252647)

French privacy laws :
That is true... only when you publish the picture... On public grounds, you can take all the pictures of people you want... You need their permission to publish, not to shoot...

Re:French privacy laws are quite different (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a month ago | (#47252749)

It's worth noting why the French team in particular, so vehemently object to drones, in a way that other nationals might not, or at least might do so less outspokenly.

In France you have ownership of your own image. A photographer needs to have your permission if they want to take a photo that has you as the main subject.

Obviously they don't need permission if you're just an incidental bystander or a face in a crowd. But if you're one of the primary subjects, then in France, you have to give your permission.

This also applies to merchandising and the law is often used in a similar way to trademarking or endorsement.

If the ball is the primary subject, then they don't need players permission.

How can you spy on soccer practice? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252461)

"We've got the advantage! Their game plan is to kick the ball and run after it. Looks like they have a move where they kick it to another player."

Re:How can you spy on soccer practice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252649)

Looks like someone here is too stupid to understand game mechanics....

Re:How can you spy on soccer practice? (0)

oobayly (1056050) | about a month ago | (#47252733)

More like they didn't want to be seen practicing Thierry Henry's "technique" [telegraph.co.uk] .

France? (-1, Offtopic)

PC_THE_GREAT (893738) | about a month ago | (#47252463)

All the ways france is not a valid football team :D they are going to lose :D being spied on or not :D .. I guess they are just looking for excuse as to why they will lose.

Luftfwaffe Light (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about a month ago | (#47252503)

Probably the Germans doing reconnaissance on the French squad.

Re:Luftfwaffe Light (5, Funny)

korbulon (2792438) | about a month ago | (#47252519)

Probably the Germans doing reconnaissance on the French squad.

Because if it was the Belgians it would have been a Luftwaffle.

Re:Luftfwaffe Light (1)

mrvan (973822) | about a month ago | (#47252729)

I had to read it twice, but that's actually quite funny :-)

(no mod points today...)

Baghdad needs drones (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252543)

So the rest of the world can watch it blow up real good. LA car chases? Pfff! How about daily coverage of cars in Baghdad blowing up real good! FIFA in Brasil? Pfff! Baghdad blowing up real good is IMPOSSIBLE to beat. So,

Baghad needs drones! Send them NOW!

Easy. (2)

goodEvans (112958) | about a month ago | (#47252625)

Paintball gun. Non-damaging to the drone, preserves privacy. Simples.

Re:Easy. (2)

wed128 (722152) | about a month ago | (#47252903)

Non-damaging to the drone

These inexpensive toy drones are pretty lightweight. I doubt a paintball *wouldn't* damage the drone...

Re:Easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47252963)

You obviously have little experience with paintball markers and flimsy plastic drones. It would tear that thing to shred, specially if it's a bit chilly..

Re:Easy. (1)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | about a month ago | (#47253437)

Paintball gun. Non-damaging to the drone, preserves privacy. Simples.

The drone in the article can fly about 1000 ft above ground level. Hope you're a good shot!

Re:Easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253727)

(Disclaimer: I'm a mechanical engineer with 10 years experience in aerospace)

Wrong, it will damage the drone. Even if the impact itself doesn't spin the drone out of control, any paint that hits a fan will. These things are a lot more delicately balanced than they look; they just have really good control systems. And that's just if the paint doesn't get into any electronics, where I assume paint will dispel the electro-magic. (again, mechanical engineer)

Drones over the matches (1)

RCourtney (973307) | about a month ago | (#47252677)

Anyone else notice the shadow of the drone flying over the actual matches (with accompanying replay footage from said drone after certain plays)? Was I the only one fixated on the shadow during the Germany vs Portugal match to see if it was just the usual camera running on wires up and down the field until it went circling in ways only a drone could? The shadow ended up being a corner-of-view distraction to me - I wonder if the players see it moving and think a player might be coming up behind them.

Re:Drones over the matches (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a month ago | (#47252689)

Most high importance stadiums have cameras on wires, as you said you thought it was initially - but are you aware that they aren't just on wires that allow them to move forward and backward? These days they are connected to four wires (north, south, east and west), and can travel in all directions, can be lowered to the height of the pitch, raised to a given maximum height, and do all sorts of things (the wires have pulleys at each end, which lengthen or shorten the wire as required - work all 4 in tandem and you have 360 degree movement) - its no longer just one linear direction of travel.

Thats probably what you saw, rather than a drone.

Re: Drones over the matches (1)

RCourtney (973307) | about a month ago | (#47252979)

I wasn't aware of that. I am not a huge sports fan, other than the World Cup every 2 years (Men's and Women's), so thank you for the lesson!

Re:Drones over the matches (1)

aviators99 (895782) | about a month ago | (#47253173)

I actually believe that "drones" were being used at the matches. They were certainly used at the Olympics this year.

I also think the objections do have to do with the thought that it was another team trying to watch training.

The Phantom 2 has a range (out of the box) of approximately 800m. So whoever was controlling it was nearby. It might have been possible to track him/her down.

I've been told by my friend who has one that it uses point-to-point 802.11 in order to communicate, so you can imagine all sorts of ways to mess with it.

Re:Drones over the matches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253413)

I'm pretty sure that "tandem" means two. Hard for 4 mechanisms to work "in tandem."

Re:Drones over the matches (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a month ago | (#47253601)

Its actually two or more, so I am correct in using it in that manner.

They know how to deal with drones in L.A. (3, Interesting)

wiredog (43288) | about a month ago | (#47252829)

They bring them down! [latimes.com]

what could he possibly have seen? (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about a month ago | (#47252907)

Football is, like basketball, largely a game of reaction.
How could "spying" on a training camp be that useful?

Private airspace (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about a month ago | (#47252913)

We need a revision to the common law statues around private airspace. This law is horribly outdated in the modern environment.

Reasonable provisions could be made, for example, one has complete control of all airspace 500m above their property. This would not interfere with any "real" aircraft but would prohibit spying by cheap quadcopters without a warrant.

410 (1)

Dereck1701 (1922824) | about a month ago | (#47252929)

"someone used a small unmanned aircraft to spy on the team's training camp"

A 410 loaded with some bird shot and choked right would solve that problem real easy for you and be of no real danger (except for the drone).

Re:410 (2)

ScentCone (795499) | about a month ago | (#47253039)

A 410 loaded with some bird shot and choked right would solve that problem real easy for you and be of no real danger (except for the drone).

Yes, that would definitely take out the drone, and would probably get the LiPo battery nicely on fire, too, as it comes crashing down in urban Brazil. And certainly no danger, except for possible eye damage to someone a hundred meters away, and that whole whatever-the-equivalent-is-in-Brazil part where discharging a firearm in town and/or at someone else's property is a For Real felony. Otherwise, excellent plan.

Pahontom II - Yes! (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a month ago | (#47253015)

I love my Phantom II with camera gimbal!

Invest in camouflage netting companies (1)

Andover Chick (1859494) | about a month ago | (#47253207)

Teams of the future will need to have tall poles with hoisted camouflage netting to counter to drone spying (assuming they cannot find indoor facilities). Perhaps also outward facing strobe lights to distort the camera's imaging.

As in many things in life... (2)

judoguy (534886) | about a month ago | (#47253531)

...the phrase "That's why they make shotguns" applies here.

mm, irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47253679)

My AR. Drone 2.0, made by Parrot, a French company arrived today! Can't wait to try it out..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...