5 ms·
Nitpick, but I don't think you could still talk about an improvised explosive device at that point.
by stdbrouw 11y ago
Nitpick, but I don't think you could still talk about an improvised explosive device at that point.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- sveiss 11y agoWhy not? At the risk of putting myself on a watchlist somewhere, stringing together a Raspberry Pi-class computer and a RFID reader to replace the mobile phone remote detonator in an IED doesn't make it any less improvised.
- feld 11y agoI think his point is that it's no longer improvised but rather well engineered
- TeMPOraL 11y agoBut it's still made of COTS parts and assembled by an individual, as opposed to dedicated hardware being used by a weapons manufacturer. I'm probably on the lists already, so I'll just point out that turning an IED into an RFID-scanning "smart IED" seems to require only a somewhat competent electrical engineering undergrad, a laptop, and less than $10 worth in parts. The reason they aren't widely used is probably because there are better methods than playing with RFIDs.
- samstave 11y agoHopping on the list: I'm just actually surprised that nobody has fixed some explosive to a little drone and flown it into some political target and detonated it. Or a bunch off these landing on cars or buildings and detonating.
- Gracana 11y agoWhy would anyone go to such lengths? What's wrong with the usual methods?
- dghughes 11y agoKeep it simple just like grandma used to make; C4 and a Nokia 3310. Homeland Security and the NSA can detect satire, right?
- TeMPOraL 11y agoSome time ago Secret Service posted a work order[0] for software that could detect (among other things) "sarcasm and false positives" in social media content, so someone is most likely working on it. [0] - https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=ccc0db429808a71d74e89de5d300a5c2&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=ccc..., actual specification in [1] [1] - https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=fb2ca11b7d9ca8c61e5ee6d8ae69ad4d https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=fb2ca11b7d9ca8c61e5ee6d8ae... (warning, .docx file)
- fucking_tragedy 11y agoThis is HN. We try to shoehorn the latest tech into solved problems like using explosives in terror campaigns.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoI think it's simply because vast majority of people are pretty OK and don't feel like killing others or blowing things up. No doubt there will be some attempts somewhere at some point, but generally - if people were to be eager to make drone-bombs, they'd probably be using RC car bombs before, or simply shooting at others more often. It seems however that in all but the most chaotic places, people generally stick to more peaceful ways of voicing their concerns or disagreements.
- Houshalter 11y agoI'm surprised that no one has done it with regular RC planes or mortars. It's not like new technology is necessary for this. Heck, why not just throw the bomb in a trash can, or hide it under a car in a parking lot, etc. It's not like bomb placement is the difficult part of terrorism.
- greggarious 11y agoI'd love to see statistics on the failure rate of say, a traditional remote operated claymore VS an "improvised explosive device". I suspect we're reaching a point where the line is getting blurry, with the main distinction being that most world governments have been good about restricting access to explosive precursors and monitoring purchases so IEDs have a higher failure rate since they do not generally have military grade explosives, military grade electronics, or access to the vast body of knowledge on how to blow shit up that most armies have.