5 ms·

No fly zones will only keep good guys out. The same is true of any regulation-based solution. Anybody can build a drone at home that ignores no-fly zones and do

No fly zones will only keep good guys out. The same is true of any regulation-based solution. Anybody can build a drone at home that ignores no-fly zones and doesn't broadcast any serial numbers, and then operate it remotely, with very little chance of getting caught. I don't know what the answer is, other than to hope that most people continue to be mostly good. In case you haven't seen it, the short film "Slaughterbots" is worth a watch: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA

erric 9y ago
I wonder if using a lower tech solution, birds of prey, would be a better option then regulation?
- cm2187 9y ago
  Drones are cheaper to buy in volume than it is to train birds.
  - erric 9y ago
    Indeed! Here’s one example[0] So LE should get counter-drones. But then the “bad guys” will get anti-counter-drones. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/12/16767000/police-netherlands-eagles-rogue-drones https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/12/16767000/police-netherla...
    - croon 9y ago
      > So LE should get counter-drones. But then the “bad guys” will get anti-counter-drones. This reminds me of the not well aged The Big Hit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw3G80bplTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw3G80bplTg
    - mmirate 9y ago
      Right, in military aviation that's just the dichotomy between bombers and fighters. Of course your enemy won't send unescorted bombers if they know you have fighters. That's why victory requires that your own fighters maintain air superiority.
      - nradov 9y ago
        The US Air Force has sent unescorted B-2 bombers into enemy territory prior to establishing air superiority.
        ceejayoz 9y ago
        That's kinda a special case, and it's generally done with a bunch of fighters ready to go intervene if necessary. It works well on Syria. I doubt it'd work well on Russia/China.
        nradov 9y ago
        There were no fighters ready to go "intervene". What would be the point? Fighters don't have the range or speed to get there in time to accomplish anything. The B-2 was specifically designed to penetrate Russian (Soviet) airspace. Hopefully we'll never find out whether it works.
        ceejayoz 9y ago
        An F-15 can cross Syria's widest dimension in about five minutes at top speed. Having fighter escorts loitering in the general vicinity isn't uncommon on a B-2 run - they can jam, distract, and assist in an escape in the event the B-2 is detected and attacked by enemy fighters. Any B-2 run on Russia/China would've been a "hope some get through" sort of scenario. There's no reason to take that sort of risk on a $2B aircraft when dealing with a country like Libya or Syria.
        mmirate 9y ago
        B-2 can do that because it is purpose-designed to avoid radar detection, and because it can remain a considerable distance above the target, letting gravity and aerodynamics do the last bit of the work in guiding the bomb to the target, which is generally building-sized not person-sized. How do you propose that we stealth a drone that has to fly literally right to the target's face?
- Spooky23 9y ago
  My cousin happens to be a falconer. There is a robust regulatory regime at the Federal and State level for keeping, training and hunting birds of prey. There are significant penalties, including Federal felony-level offenses for straying from the path. You're probably going to get in more trouble for abusing birds than whatever you're doing.
giancarlostoro 9y ago
Yeah passing laws to prevent lawbreakers from abusing something never makes sense to me. Law breakers will not be stopped by new laws, they can always break the law or find ways to circumvent restrictions like hiring people to buy drones or smuggling more drones in. Regulations and laws don't fully and truly work against Criminals: how's that drug war working out? Criminals don't need laws to keep turning them more into criminals. They need a chance to be reeducated and truly be capable of changing their lifestyle. Not sure what the better answers are but more policies wont do much. Just simple tech that shuts those drones down works easier.
empath75 9y ago
Its sort of part of the definition of ‘criminal’ that they don’t follow laws. That doesn’t mean that laws are pointless.
mmirate 9y ago
You are correct in describing the lawless and the futility of legislating them out of existence. That doesn't mean that laws are our only defense. I'm 100% fine with slaughterbots, because the same exact kind of bot can be used to hunt down and destroy stolen or "bootleg" slaughterbots.
Spooky23 9y ago
This is dangerous logic that is usually hijacked by people/groups with agendas. Most people are "good guys". Examples of successful regulation abound. It's pretty trivial to build (and has been for many years) a device that interferes with broadcast signals or mobile phones, yet we don't have a pervasive problem with this type of interference. We rely on voluntary compliance for income taxes, for example, and have a very effective system despite how trivial it is to avoid taxation. We rely on voluntary compliance with traffic laws and use licensing and sanctions to control violations. The problem with drones is that unlike traditional aviation, right now there is no privilege associated with that can be taken away. Until that happens, you're left with prohibitions enforced by criminal sanction.

erric 9y ago

I wonder if using a lower tech solution, birds of prey, would be a better option then regulation?

cm2187 9y ago
Drones are cheaper to buy in volume than it is to train birds.
- erric 9y ago
  Indeed! Here’s one example[0] So LE should get counter-drones. But then the “bad guys” will get anti-counter-drones. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/12/16767000/police-netherlands-eagles-rogue-drones https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/12/16767000/police-netherla...
  - croon 9y ago
    > So LE should get counter-drones. But then the “bad guys” will get anti-counter-drones. This reminds me of the not well aged The Big Hit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw3G80bplTg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw3G80bplTg
  - mmirate 9y ago
    Right, in military aviation that's just the dichotomy between bombers and fighters. Of course your enemy won't send unescorted bombers if they know you have fighters. That's why victory requires that your own fighters maintain air superiority.
    - nradov 9y ago
      The US Air Force has sent unescorted B-2 bombers into enemy territory prior to establishing air superiority.
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        That's kinda a special case, and it's generally done with a bunch of fighters ready to go intervene if necessary. It works well on Syria. I doubt it'd work well on Russia/China.
        nradov 9y ago
        There were no fighters ready to go "intervene". What would be the point? Fighters don't have the range or speed to get there in time to accomplish anything. The B-2 was specifically designed to penetrate Russian (Soviet) airspace. Hopefully we'll never find out whether it works.
        ceejayoz 9y ago
        An F-15 can cross Syria's widest dimension in about five minutes at top speed. Having fighter escorts loitering in the general vicinity isn't uncommon on a B-2 run - they can jam, distract, and assist in an escape in the event the B-2 is detected and attacked by enemy fighters. Any B-2 run on Russia/China would've been a "hope some get through" sort of scenario. There's no reason to take that sort of risk on a $2B aircraft when dealing with a country like Libya or Syria.
      - mmirate 9y ago
        B-2 can do that because it is purpose-designed to avoid radar detection, and because it can remain a considerable distance above the target, letting gravity and aerodynamics do the last bit of the work in guiding the bomb to the target, which is generally building-sized not person-sized. How do you propose that we stealth a drone that has to fly literally right to the target's face?
Spooky23 9y ago
My cousin happens to be a falconer. There is a robust regulatory regime at the Federal and State level for keeping, training and hunting birds of prey. There are significant penalties, including Federal felony-level offenses for straying from the path. You're probably going to get in more trouble for abusing birds than whatever you're doing.

giancarlostoro 9y ago

Yeah passing laws to prevent lawbreakers from abusing something never makes sense to me. Law breakers will not be stopped by new laws, they can always break the law or find ways to circumvent restrictions like hiring people to buy drones or smuggling more drones in. Regulations and laws don't fully and truly work against Criminals: how's that drug war working out? Criminals don't need laws to keep turning them more into criminals. They need a chance to be reeducated and truly be capable of changing their lifestyle. Not sure what the better answers are but more policies wont do much. Just simple tech that shuts those drones down works easier.

empath75 9y ago

Its sort of part of the definition of ‘criminal’ that they don’t follow laws. That doesn’t mean that laws are pointless.

mmirate 9y ago

You are correct in describing the lawless and the futility of legislating them out of existence. That doesn't mean that laws are our only defense. I'm 100% fine with slaughterbots, because the same exact kind of bot can be used to hunt down and destroy stolen or "bootleg" slaughterbots.

Spooky23 9y ago

This is dangerous logic that is usually hijacked by people/groups with agendas. Most people are "good guys". Examples of successful regulation abound. It's pretty trivial to build (and has been for many years) a device that interferes with broadcast signals or mobile phones, yet we don't have a pervasive problem with this type of interference. We rely on voluntary compliance for income taxes, for example, and have a very effective system despite how trivial it is to avoid taxation. We rely on voluntary compliance with traffic laws and use licensing and sanctions to control violations. The problem with drones is that unlike traditional aviation, right now there is no privilege associated with that can be taken away. Until that happens, you're left with prohibitions enforced by criminal sanction.