LOL. That's exactly what I thought when I read that. Seemed a little hypocritical. I think that in the interview he addressed this very question, though. The news article that I read spun it as though he supported legislation regulating civilian use of surveillance drones, but I'm not so sure. Seemed to me as though he was merely predicting that it would be regulated. I'm not sure that's really necessary, though, to protect people's privacy. I mean, what's the difference between me putting up a camera tower in my yard and sending up a radio controlled hovering device to do the same thing? Currently regulations preventing privacy violations should apply the same. The issue I saw them talking about that is really only brought about with the use of drones is that drones can be used to fly over another's property for surveillance, whereas a tower would obviously not get that point of view. I'm not sure that's really that legitimate of a worry, though. I think the biggest issue here is that now we have to define how much airspace is part of someone's property. Surely that's defined to some degree already, though, at least in federal law? Wouldn't you think? Maybe not. But yeah, it's certainly interesting times we're in.
Edit: Apparently I was wrong, looks like he does advocate government regulation. *sigh*
