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.
Comments
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.