Remotely Piloted Aircraft Could Disperse Bioweapon at Olympics

[Dan Beavers]

We need to keep this sort of scenario in mind and figure out how not to
get tared with this brush.

5/7/2012
Remotely Piloted Aircraft Could Disperse Bioweapon at Olympics
A high-level British army official has said it would be "feasible" for an
extremist to employ a miniature, remotely piloted airplane to disperse a
dangerous biological agent over London as the Summer Olympics take place,
the Daily Mail reported on Saturday.
http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/s1acad7PBlyr

[Coby]

Unfortunately the press seems to like this kind of story as it sells better than the Tech for Good angle.

It's also "feasible" to use a car/truck to create havoc.  And probably much easier and therefor more likely than someone making and then deploying a weaponized bioanything.

UAS tech exists and it's not going away.  It is a tool; like a hammer I can use it to build a house, or hit someone over the head.

My suggestion would be to keep doing Good Things with tech and proactively educate people along the way.

Personally I think we need to adopt something with the same spirit/intent of the Three Laws to help show that we acknowledge, and are prepared to deal with the ugly side of the tools we are creating.  Hmm.  And I guess by "we" I mean anyone, so that part needs a bit of work too...

R,

C

[Gary Mortimer]

Could'nt agree more a code of conduct would be a great thing. As crazy
as it might seem.

> -- Post to this group at grassroo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe,
> email grassrootsmapp...@googlegroups.com. Options at
> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/grassrootsmapping?hl=en

[Liz Barry]

what are the "three laws" related to conduct you mentioned? Seems like it could inform the overall ethics statement folks are trying to write for Public Lab.  

--
@lizbarry

[Spike (Chris Foote)]

Probably the Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:

1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

Spike

[Gary Mortimer]

Love that it's like a hammer comment Colby I am going to steal it if I
may next time I am asked about UAS.

On 5/9/12, Spike (Chris Foote) <sp...@tenbus.co.uk> wrote:
> Probably the Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:
>
> 1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a
> human being to come to harm.
> 2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except
> where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
> 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection
> does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
>
> Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
>
> Spike
>
> On 09/05/2012 15:14, Liz Barry wrote:
>> what are the "three laws" related to conduct you mentioned? Seems like
>> it could inform the overall ethics statement folks are trying to write
>> for Public Lab.
>>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Gary Mortimer
>> <grmor...@googlemail.com <mailto:grmor...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Could'nt agree more a code of conduct would be a great thing. As crazy
>> as it might seem.
>>

>> On 5/8/12, Coby <cgl...@gmail.com <mailto:cgl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > Unfortunately the press seems to like this kind of story as it
>> sells better
>> > than the Tech for Good angle.
>> >
>> > It's also "feasible" to use a car/truck to create havoc. And
>> probably much
>> > easier and therefor more likely than someone making and then
>> deploying a
>> > weaponized bioanything.
>> >
>> > UAS tech exists and it's not going away. It is a tool; like a
>> hammer I can
>> > use it to build a house, or hit someone over the head.
>> >
>> > My suggestion would be to keep doing Good Things with tech and
>> proactively
>> > educate people along the way.
>> >
>> > Personally I think we need to adopt something with the same
>> spirit/intent
>> > of the Three Laws to help show that we acknowledge, and are
>> prepared to
>> > deal with the ugly side of the tools we are creating. Hmm. And
>> I guess by
>> > "we" I mean anyone, so that part needs a bit of work too...
>> >
>> > R,
>> > C
>> >
>>
>

[Miguel Castrence]

A code of conduct isn't crazy at all. A few years ago I worked on a
training kit for participatory mapping: http://pgis-tk-en.cta.int
The 2nd module covered "Attitudes, Behaviours and Ethics".

On May 8, 8:19 am, Gary Mortimer <grmorti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Could'nt agree more a code of conduct would be a great thing. As crazy
> as it might seem.
>

[Coby]

@Gary - please feel free to use The Hammer analog.  I probably mangled someone else's more enlightened quote anyway.

@Liz and @Spike - Yes, The Three Laws.  I like to capitalize words to increase the cool factor.

@Miguel - Thanks.  I think it is perceived as a bit of "crazy talk" right now.  At least that's the look I get when I bring it up.  There are some practical issues with implementing the Three Laws.  Here's an example:

- Say you have a small quadcopter with an autopilot and you would like to use autonomous navigation.

- Technical, by the letter of the Three Laws, your autopilot would not only need to be able to fly safely, but would also need to be able to distinguish humans in order to interpret rules that would drive Three Laws programming logic.

- That level of sophistication is coming quickly, but would probably take more work than just making the thing fly

- The short term fix seems to be keeping the human in the loop within visual line of site in order to act as a real time safety

There are other issues such as privacy that even balloon mappers will also need to deal with.

I highly recommend reading Wired for War for great history, context, and a variety of ideas around these issues.

R,

C

> > -- Post to this group at grassrootsmapping@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe,
> > email grassrootsmapping+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. Options at
> >https://groups.google.com/d/forum/grassrootsmapping?hl=en

[Mathew Lippincott]

I really like Coby's metaphor, and the idea of a three-laws style code of conduct.  Azimov put some real thought into the ethics of autonomous machines, and its definitely not crazy make use of his work.

But to extend the hammer metaphor (or mangle it), I think tool choice is important too, not just the code governing their use.  The ethics are in where a hammer is swung, but there is responsibility in choosing the right hammer for the job-  I wouldn't grab a sledge hammer to drive a nail, even if it could drive a big nail in one swing.

I think that UAS's (unmanned aerial systems) should be deployed based on their fitness for a specific environment, not just the convenience of the operator.  UAVs are often more convenient to fly than tethered aerostats (kites, balloons) but I think they should be used very cautiously, especially in populated areas.  My concern is not so much about the crash hazard as the form of the UAV and its inherent technical potential for offensive action.

A UAS doesn't just have to fly in airspace, over physical terrain, it has to navigate a social environment--- the world is full of people.  It's not enough to get the right data this one time, we need to think about what is the best way to repeatedly get data; the long-term success of aerial data acquisition depends on social acceptance.

As steerable, targetable aircraft, all UAVs are offensively weaponizable to some extent- in contrast, tethered aerostats are only deployed by the military in well-defended airspace for defensive/observational reasons and have no offensive capabilities. The same features that make balloons and kites useless for offensive deployment are the same reasons they're better for peaceful deployments, and should be used preferentially even if it means more operator hassle:

1) Tethered aerostats have a string attached.  The string is a built-in form of public accountability-- the flyer is easily found, unlike a UAV controller.

2) Even if people are scared of surveillance by tethered aerostats, they aren't scared of getting chased down and shot.  "Is it armed?" is not a question that gets asked. putting a gun on a balloon or kite is ridiculous. 

3) Balloons are soft, they don't move fast, and they aren't particularly dangerous, even if they crash into the ground.  The same goes for frameless  (rammed air) kites.

4) Balloons are more likely to fail up than down, carrying any heavy payload away from a populated area.  (the same can't be said for kites).

5) 10 year-olds can be trained to fly kites and balloons safely, and they will always have a lower barrier to entry, broadening accessibility to the technology.  Those watching a kite or balloon can more easily imagine themselves adopting and interacting with the tech.

Mathew

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Spike (Chris Foote) <sp...@tenbus.co.uk> wrote:

Probably the Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:

1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

Spike

On 09/05/2012 15:14, Liz Barry wrote:

what are the "three laws" related to conduct you mentioned? Seems like it could inform the overall ethics statement folks are trying to write for Public Lab.  

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Gary Mortimer <grmor...@googlemail.com>wrote:

Could'nt agree more a code of conduct would be a great thing. As crazy
as it might seem.

On 5/8/12, Coby <cgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately the press seems to like this kind of story as it sells better
> than the Tech for Good angle.
>
> It's also "feasible" to use a car/truck to create havoc.  And probably much
> easier and therefor more likely than someone making and then deploying a
> weaponized bioanything.
>
> UAS tech exists and it's not going away.  It is a tool; like a hammer I can
> use it to build a house, or hit someone over the head.
>
> My suggestion would be to keep doing Good Things with tech and proactively
> educate people along the way.
>
> Personally I think we need to adopt something with the same spirit/intent
> of the Three Laws to help show that we acknowledge, and are prepared to
> deal with the ugly side of the tools we are creating.  Hmm.  And I guess by
> "we" I mean anyone, so that part needs a bit of work too...
>
> R,
> C
>

-- Post to this group at grassroo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe, email grassrootsmapp...@googlegroups.com. Options at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/grassrootsmapping?hl=en

-- Post to this group at grassroo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe, email grassrootsmapp...@googlegroups.com. Options at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/grassrootsmapping?hl=en

[Miguel Castrence]

Speaking of safety and privacy issues, I just stumbled on this article
on UAVs:
http://jalopnik.com/5909207/why-you-could-soon-see-a-lot-more-drones-in-american-skies

[Gary Mortimer]

I am trying to find it, but I think you will find the AMA in HR 658
pulled kites and balloons into their regs. So be careful what you
think will and won't work in the future.

The old wording used to say something like .... anything unmanned that
can be controlled in three axis, I think it now says something like
anything capable of sustained flight.

Why the pain you cry

Well look for PGSS systems persistent ground surveillance systems.
They are balloons.

Now the government probably does not want those in private hands either.

I will look into it for sUAS News

Gary

[Gary Mortimer]

The provision I am amazed they have missed is what happened in the UK,
their they define it as anything flying with data gathering equipment.
So that covers cameras and wifi sniffing etc etc etc.

[Ron Huber]

A question about PGSS systems persistent ground surveillance systems  data.

Is the data that they produce available for public use? Obviously not the visual data of  places where warring is going on, but do those blimps  deploy over more peaceable locations?   I wonder if they might release that data?   Consider how the NAVY makes its SOSUS data available.

Acoustic data from the US Navy's SOSUS  (SOund SUrveillance System) bottom mounted hydrophone arrays connected  to facilities ashore is now supplied freely to civilian scientific and conservation users  tracking whales and water temperature and shrimp. Listen to a two minute sample of whales and, I think, shrimp, on SOSUS(mp3)  While the Navy still uses it to listen to submarines - they also have 'post-SOSUS'  acoustic detection technology  that is supplanting SOSUS. and  doubtless edit out the submerine sounds from the publically availabe acoustic data

Might the US Air force - or whoever deploys the PGGS blimps - do something similar with its "non-classified" imagery?

Ron

Ron Huber
Penobscot Bay Watch

Rockland Maine
www.penbay.org
penobscotbay.blogspot.com

Ron Huber
Penobscot Bay Watch
POB 1871
Rockland Maine 04841

e: coast...@gmail.com
tel: 207-691-7485
web: www.penbay.org
blog: penobscotbay.blogspot.com
twitter http://twitter.com/penobscotbay

[Jeffrey Warren]

Hmm, I found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ95/html/PLAW-112publ95.htm

search for "SEC. 335''

(c) Model Aircraft Defined- In this section, the term `model aircraft' means an unmanned aircraft that is--

(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Searches didn't find any use of the words "balloon" "kite" "tether" "aerostat"... 

Jeff

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Gary Mortimer <grmor...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[Mathew Lippincott]

Jeff beat me to the punch :-P

Now, on Gary's claim that this definition "pulled in" kites and balloons to model aircraft rules, I'm highly skeptical. In my other work I read water and plumbing laws and regulations and talk to regulators frequently, and so I'm looking at this with that experience in mind. Firstly, this is congress's definition for the purposes of this law, not a mandate for the FAA to re-write their definition for the purposes of regulatory enforcement.  Secondly, It's rare that categorical definitions with inclusive language are ever interpreted to pull in other technologies that have traditionally been covered by their own definitions.  Not to say that it won't happen, but the FAA has separate definitions of kites, balloons, and model aircraft, and until congress tells them to change their kite and balloon regs, I doubt they'll go re-writing their whole code.

[עידן - חזני פרויקטים‎]

 

Please, unsubscribe me from your list

 

 

---

[עידן - חזני פרויקטים‎]

 

Please, unsubscribe me from your list

 

 

 

From: grassroo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:grassroo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Warren
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 7:59 PM
To: grassroo...@googlegroups.com

[עידן - חזני פרויקטים‎]

Please, unsubscribe me from your list

 

 

From: grassroo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:grassroo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Huber
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 5:46 PM
To: grassroo...@googlegroups.com

[conser...@gmail.com]

I would agree, this topic has gone on for far too long. 

Crispen Wilson
www.konservasi.org
conser...@gmail.com

skype: crispenrand
+62 (0) 082164488334 Indonesia

+67 (0) 7817554 Timor Leste

1 (202) 758 4025 United States

[Jeffrey Warren]

You'll notice that at the bottom of every message on this list, there is an unsubscribe link, which I'm copying below so you can see. As you decided to join the list, it's your responsibility to leave it, and it is somewhat rude to yell at the entire list about it.

Do feel free to politely ask people to take conversations off-list if you feel strongly that they are off-topic or diving into esoterica; posting a research note and further exploring a topic on the website is a good alternative -- those interested can opt-in.

-- Post to this group at grassroo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe, email grassrootsmapp...@googlegroups.com. Options at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/grassrootsmapping?hl=en

[andrzej zaborowski]

These are all true (with some exceptions) but I don't think they are a
sufficient reason to avoid UAVs unless necessary. I'd compare this
with the choice between a sedan car and a truck. A truck, while more
dangerous is just the right tool for moving house even though it could
also be done with a passenger car.

Now the danger levels are also not so clear cut. I've had a couple of
problems come up while kite photographing and while it never ended up
in anything bad, I had been imagining what could happen. My main fear
when losing control of the kite was basically that it would cause a
traffic accident by falling somewhere in the middle of a busy street.
The other big risk with a lost kite is that the line being dragged on
by the kite can easily cut someone.

Also in the airspace one of the main safety rules is maintaining
visual separation between aircraft. With a kite you have very little
control and you neither can see the distance from other aircraft well,
nor can you react quickly. I've been thinking of getting myself a
radio to listen to the ATC messaging but I concluded even if there was
a message saying that something is going to be flying exactly where
I'm flying my kite, I'd need at least 20 minutes to pull the thing
down. A remotely piloted RC plane is much more agile and (assuming
video piloting) you can see other aircraft much more easily. It's
also much smaller. While I don't think either a kite or an RC plane
would cause much trouble to a passenger plane colliding with it, they
could scare the pilot.

(Although with my 80kg-rated line and the kite pulling with a force of
some 20kg and a small passenger plane's wing touching the line at a
small angle I wonder if the line would break immediately, or would it
first destabilize the plane slightly)

The RC plane I'm playing with recently (with video piloting) is what
RC hobbyists call a foamie and weights < 1kg including the Canon
camera. Even if it falls on somebody I'd say it's less dangerous than
some of the migratory birds dying mid flight :)

Cheers

[Gary Mortimer]

Well I stand to be corrected, I will keep looking.

[Coby]

I very much appreciate the willingness of this group to even entertain talking about ethical and regulatory implications.

The other groups I am in either just want to bitch about privacy/drone wars with few proposed solutions, or run away from the topics as quickly as they can.

Not sure it need continue under this thread and/or this group.  Perhaps it moves to PLOTS for more discussion?

And it seems there may be at least two topics that are related but may need to be dealt with separately:

1) Ethics - including privacy

2) Safety/Regulations - not sure how to label that one.  I was an Aviation Safety Officer for a time so I have some ideas, but nothing jelling right now.  I will say that it's my firm belief that safety is NOT job one.  It's a byproduct of professionalism.  Or if you want to keep it really simple: smart = safe. 

Anyway, I think these are very important conversations to have early rather than late.  

R,

C