Bad news, nerds. (screencap)

Watch Saturday Night Live skewer Google Glass-obsessed tech reporters. [The Verge]

A drone got stuck on a statue on top of a courthouse in Ohio. Welcome to the future! [AP]

"When some future Mars colonist is able to open his browser and watch a cat in a shark suit chasing a duck while riding a roomba, they will have Vint Cerf to thank." Mmmkay. [Wired]

Betabeat feels obliged to point out that the world's first 3D-printed gun, the "Liberator," has the same name as a sex pillow. [Forbes]

The sci fi folk at Tor Books say removing DRM hasn't put a dent in its ebook sales. [Ars Technica]

(Screencap: YouTube)

Hey, you! You who hates everything. I'm diggin' your smirk. Boy, have we got something to show you. If you thought flashmob wedding proposals were bad, get a load of this: some guy actually used an aerial drone to propose to his girlfriend. Because nothing says romance like "unmanned aerial craft that's typically used to kill people."

We've gotta hand it to the boyfriend: he clearly knows his SEO. How else would he get his video to go viral?

Point being: romance is dead, everything is the worst, etc etc. They do make a super cute couple though.

SHIT! (screencap, annotated by Betabeat)

Does the prospect of Skynet keep you awake at night? Well, now there's something you can do to fight your fears, besides chucking your Sarah Connor Chronicles DVDs. The BBC reports that yesterday, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots officially launched in London.

The group is exactly what it sounds like. Founded by reps from nine different NGOs, including the Human Rights Watch, International Committee for Robot Arms Control and Nobel Women’s Initiative, the campaign wants a "pre-emptive and comprehensive ban" on fully autonomous weapons.

Building on a report released last fall, leaders are calling for an international treaty, plus national laws as needed.

The group's leader Jody Williams was upbeat about their prospects in an interview with the BBC, predicting that people will "flock" to the cause. She said:

"The public conscience is horrified to learn about this possible advance in weapons systems. People don't want killer robots out there. Normal human beings find it repulsive."

Bear in mind that the U.K. government has said it's got no intention of developing such weapons. Of course, that's what the government would say, isn't it?

An EPA drone. Trash burners, be worried.

Yesterday the Senate held a hearing on drones, to discuss whether privacy laws can handle a sudden proliferation of cheap, lightweight aircraft perfectly designed for unlawful surveillance. Can the cops now hover over your carefully hidden pot crop? Can the sex offender down the street now peek into your second-story window? How are corporations going to use this to their advantage?

The only comforting sight was the image of charming grandparents Patrick Leahy and Diane Feinstein investigating one of these newfangled devices.

As the New York Times reports, the meeting was also an occasion to air two very, very different viewpoints on the new gadgets: Are they spiffy D.I.Y. gizmos, or are they an Orwellian threat to privacy?

Showing the public uneasiness over the new technology, one young protester at the hearing was led away by Capitol police after she stood up and declared, “Drones are responsible for the death of people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen!” Another protester held a sign that said, “1984.”

As Ms. Goitein observed, “The country can be divided into people who think this is horrifying and people who think this is neat.”

Actually, could we get a diagram mapping how Hacker News commenters break out into those two populations? Much appreciated.

Do not steal form her. (Photo: Necole Betchie)

Well look who's scroogling screwing people now. The European Union has fined Microsoft $731 million for violating its promise to offer consumers a choice of web browser. Probably because when given a choice, no one will pick Internet Explorer. [Reuters]

Facebook plans to announce better ways to filter News Feed content at tomorrow's big press event, including being able to view just Instagram photos. Photos will also appear larger for posts and, of course, ads. [TechCrunch]

What happens when you share Beyonce files on BitTorrent? Sony smacks you with a $233,000 damages lawsuit. That's what you get for stealing from Queen Bey, we suppose. [TorrentFreak]

The FBI is secretly spying on some Google users, though because of national security, Google can only give an estimate of how many accounts have been tapped. [Wired]

JFK employees reportedly saw a drone aircraft flying around yesterday, and now the FBI wants your help tracking it. [Motherboard]

No pictures, please, no pictures. (Photo: flickr.com/adactio

The drone invasion is practically upon us: The FAA is authorizing various police departments to fly unmanned aerial vehicles; Chris Anderson left Wired to focus on his drone hobbyist startup. But it seems some folks are none too keen on the idea of eyes in the sky surveying their yards, and you will probably not be too surprised to learn some of those opponents live in Texas.

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be drone-operating snoops.

Popular Science reports that the Texas State House is currently considering a bill which would prohibit using drones to take snapshots of private property. As written, it's pretty stringent:

It’s unique because it criminalizes taking any data--photos, sound, temperature, even odor--of private property using an unmanned aircraft without the permission of the property owner. Law enforcement officers could only use drones while executing a search warrant or if they had probable cause to believe someone is committing a felony, and firefighters can only use drones for fighting fire or to rescue a person whose life is “in imminent danger.”

That'd sure help anyone with a pot-growing operation sleep easier at night.

The Republican sponsoring the bill, Lance Gooden, says he doesn't want to ban drones outright. He just doesn't want them taking a bunch of pictures that could be handed over the authorities who could then, hypothetically, tip off someone like the EPA or the DEA or whoever. Says Popular Science:

Gooden said he doesn’t want to limit beneficial drone uses, from law enforcement pursuing criminal suspects to power companies checking downed lines. “But under no circumstances, ever, should people lose their right to privacy just because people want to take pictures,” he said.

This guy is really going to flip when someone tells him about Google StreetView.

Yikes.

If we've learned anything from a hundred years of science fiction, it's that handing over a) guns and b) any serious amount of authority to robots is not going to end well. However, the Pentagon doesn't make R&D decisions based on Battlestar Galactica. Military drones are still controlled by humans, but for how long? Lest arms makers get any ideas, Human Right Watch has just published a lengthy report titled, "Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots."

If  "killer robots" makes you think "cylons," well, you're pretty much on the same dystopian page as Human Rights Watch and their partners at Harvard's International Human Rights Clinic. The organizations are concerned about the prospect of the development of autonomous weapons, which would have the ability to pick and choose their own targets (based on their masters' aims, of course). Unfortunately, they wouldn't have the built-in moral calculus that says to err on the side of not killing civilians.

From the report's announcement:

“Giving machines the power to decide who lives and dies on the battlefield would take technology too far,” said Steve Goose, Arms Division director at Human Rights Watch. “Human control of robotic warfare is essential to minimizing civilian deaths and injuries.”

Now, bear in mind that these weapons don't actually exist yet and likely won't for another two or three decades. But seriously: killer robots.