Why do I smell propaganda (for more drone laws) when I read this?<p>Imagine if it thr subject were encryption instead of drones.<p>Police are able to shoo people away from crime/accident scenes, that should apply to devices too, and can't they solve it by having a device that shoots out a net? (Or does that only exist in movies?) US police can apply for federal military gear for cheap anyway (not that that's a good thing, police should deescalate, not escalate situations).
This is a joke. Consumer electronics radio communication systems may be trivially jammed, with little to no effort. It's simply a matter of political protocol (aka: warrants) for when and where such things must happen.<p>The article states that the services used to relay data links were common wi-fi and ordinary cellular telephone service.<p>The first thing that usually happens in a war zone is HAM radio service experiences disruption. [0] Cell phone back doors via CALEA [1] are already used to disrupt would-be suicide bombers around the world, and yes even in the United States. [2]<p>If push comes to shove, we'll all lose wi-fi and cell phones in an area of effect, around any hostile activity, whenever shit gets real.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-radio14jan14-story.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-radio14jan14-story.html</a><p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://codegreenprep.com/2013/04/boston-bombing-shows-you-cant-rely-on-cell-phones-in-an-emergency/" rel="nofollow">http://codegreenprep.com/2013/04/boston-bombing-shows-you-ca...</a>
We are trending towards a world where individuals are becoming more omniscient and more omnipotent. Where any motivated US citizen can purchase a drone, look up how to build a bomb or plant a GPS tracker.<p>Regulation to prevent access to these capabilities feels like throwing rocks into a river; it may slow some things down, but it seems an inevitability that the capabilities of technologically augmented citizens will continue to grow - we as a society need to work out how to adapt to deal with this future in a meaningful way, avoiding knee-jerk policies like drone registration that inconvenience the masses and serve as no real barrier to the malicious.
Here is a neat thing to do for the comments section here: open up your browser's console, and enter something like:<p><pre><code> for (let i of $$('.comment span.c00')) i.innerHTML = i.innerHTML.replace(/drone/ig, 'gun');
</code></pre>
It's really a stunning effect, much more so than just staring at the comments and imagining swapping the words around.<p>For the record, I don't think drones are exactly equivalent to firearms. But the parallels between the comments here and those of gun advocates is something that should make people stop and go, "hmm."<p>> <i>Why do I smell propaganda (for more gun laws) when I read this?</i>
Even 20 years ago almost anyone could load model RC airplanes with a grenade then direct them beyond an embassy fence or to a human target during a speech. Don't assume only modern stuff can be used as a weapon and don't blame technology or attempt to overregulate it when it happens.<p>(Just to be clear: I'm strongly in favor of gun regulation; there's a huge difference between something whose primary use it to harm people from tools and toys).
The logistics of keeping a drone airborne for an extended period make skeptical of many of the claims in this article.<p>A drone monitoring people who come in and out of a police station would be a monumental task. Take the flight time of a drone, one that is both small enough to not be noticed and yet powerful enough to spot people's faces. These things have flight time measured in minutes. It would take a team of people and a fleet of a dozen drones. This is batman-v-joker stuff.<p>Same too with the drones used at the boarder. A drone has a limited useful range, perhaps a kilometer at most. So people will still need to hike into the area. And the drones need recharge/refuel. A man standing on a mountain with a telescope can continuously observe a greater area than a hundred drones. I don't see the efficiency.<p>Perhaps the bad guys have experimented and these experiments have been spotted, but I cannot believe that these are common practices.
Now based on this article lawmakers can cite the dangers of drones. This is ammunition to fund and agenda. Don't bother with trying to piece together this dribble, it is propaganda at its finest. Look at the outlet. They have a vested interests in restricting drones access to encumbent powers.
I wholeheartedly recommend this somewhat OT video about the future of drones and their potential harm: Slaughterbots<p><a href="https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA</a>
"The gangs will monitor port authority workers. If the workers get close to a shipping container that houses illegal substances or contraband, the gang will call in a fire, theft, or some other false alarm to draw off security forces."<p>This presents the Perfect opportunity to zero in on dodgy containers of contraband.. walk around coming from various directions till the drones come and they will show the area to search
I think this is going to get far worse before it gets better. These drones remind me of the use of burner phones - like most tech end up doing eventually it's hit a price point where we can easily pick up and discard new ones with little concern which means that it's going to be a necessity to have one of these for any criminal operation as others start to include them in theirs (arms races aren't just for countries, certainly happens in smaller more local settings).<p>The article mentions a few options for how the authorities will limit the criminal applications but I wonder if it'll get more extreme than that (especially after we end up with a terrorist attack perpetrated by someone using a drone). It won't solve all negative use cases but I wonder if there's some way for drone manufacturers to create no fly zones automatically that will cause a drone to redirect if it enters one and allows law enforcement to create new temporary zones for situations like the one described in the article.<p>edit for clarity
I think a drone id is a good thing, but not to identify criminals. They’d reset the id or falsify it. It would be helpful to monitor drone airspace though, e.g. to see who’s using drones too close to restricted zones etc.
If you think this is bad, just wait until criminals and terrorists get their hands on these: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_7mUOw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_7mUOw</a>
It's funny, some people are so opposed to increasing capabilities of law enforcement but they conveniently ignore that the capabilities of criminals are increasing too.<p>Law enforcement should be as many steps ahead of criminals as possible, provided their capabilities do not infringe on our rights as citizens.
Drones must be regulated because people are irresponsible. Sometimes I see photos taken from a drone hanging above the people. What if it falls down?<p>Therefore, drones need identification. There must be a number on it and there must be a law forbidding to operate a drone without number.