7 ms·

Terrorists are already using Drones to attack people[1]. ISIS are buying and perhaps using drones in Europe[2]. Unfortunately, this means drones will need to b

Terrorists are already using Drones to attack people[1]. ISIS are buying and perhaps using drones in Europe[2]. Unfortunately, this means drones will need to be regulated like they are weapons, because they are used as weapons. 1- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/americas/venezuelan-president-targeted-in-attack-attempt-minister-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/americas/venezuelan... 2- https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Two-arrested-in-Denmark-for-attempting-to-smuggle-drones-to-ISIS-568039 https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Two-arrested-in-Denmark-...

Raphmedia 8y ago
Car bombs are rampant but cars are not treated as weapons except (somewhat) for vehicular manslaughter.
- draugadrotten 8y ago
  Car analogies are always good. Well, cars must undergo heavy certification and testing before being allowed on public roads. Operators must undergo certified training and be certified before operating cars on public roads. Every car is registered and tracked with a visible marking. Cars are limited in how fast they can go, and how much emissions they can have and more. I believe these kinds of measures will be put in place for drones as well: only certified drones with enforced technical limitations of speed and height, certified operators only ,and remotely visible (rfid) license plates.
  - wnevets 8y ago
    It's always odd to see people choosing one of the most regulated products on the market for those kinds of arguments.
  - learc83 8y ago
    This works for cars because cars are too big to be easily concealable Most of regulations you mention also do nothing to stop cars from being used as weapons, so they are completely irrelevant to your point. The few regulations you mentioned that do provide some deterrent to being used as weapons weren't intended for that purpose, and are easily circumvented by determined attackers anyway.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > This works for cars because cars are too big to be easily concealable Drones in the skies aren't necessarily easily concealable either. If they are requires to have some sort of identifier (RFID), it's not too hard to check what's in the skies, or note what's lower around points of interest. Both cars and drones are fairly easily transported by other vehicles. Cars may require a trailer, open or enclosed, but it's hardly rare to see. Drones are slightly easier to transport in that respect, but not enough that I think it makes a difference.
      - learc83 8y ago
        >Drones in the skies aren't necessarily easily concealable either Drones can fly either high enough to not be easily seen (and they are too small to show up on most radars) Or they can be launched near a target and fly low. >Both cars and drones are fairly easily transported by other vehicles. But you need another licensed vehicle at that point to transport it. You can put a drone in a backpack and walk, ride a bike, take a bus etc... >Drones are slightly easier to transport in that respect, but not enough that I think it makes a difference. You think that a 2 pound drone is only "slightly easier" to transport surreptitiously than a 2 ton car?
        kbenson 8y ago
        > Drones can fly either high enough to not be easily seen By eye, yes. By digital camera? That would have to be pretty high. At least on clear days. But there are days where visibility is low in general, and that goes for cars too. > Or they can be launched near a target and fly low. High risk targets should have additional safeguards. It's not hard for cars to get to some locations just because they aren't allowed, but because there is additional security and physical obstructions. One solution never covers all cases, and we shouldn't expect it to. > But you need another licensed vehicle at that point to transport it. Or you hire someone to tow it. Yes, it's harder. But also it's not like every time you get behind the wheel of a car someone checks that you're licensed. How many times have you had your license checked while driving? How many hours have you driven? > You think that a 2 pound drone is only "slightly easier" to transport surreptitiously than a 2 ton car? I think in the case you are planning to use it illegally, it's not really that much of a difference. Seriously, you can probably walk into any rundown part of town, buy some older beat up car for cash for under $1000 dollars, and immediately use it for your purpose while the title change is in the mail (for states that allow that), if the person selling it really even cares. Drones are new, so there's less infrastructure to track and manage them, but it's not really all that different IMO, it's just a matter of time.
  - AngryData 8y ago
    You need zero of those things to own or drive a vehicle on private property. It has merit for flying in public parks and the like, but flying around some private property would be comparable to driving around your house/field/private track.
- zrobotics 8y ago
  At least in the US, cars are very much treated as though they are dangerous enough to effectively be weapons. They must be titled, and are required to have an individual serial number (the VIN). Additionally, in order to operate one the operator must be certified by the state to be competent (driver's license). They are recognized as being dangerous enough to require special insurance, and many states require annual inspect to certify they are safe to operate. And speaking as someone who has registered a home-built car in Wyoming (which is both figuratively and literally the wild west for vehicle regulations) it isn't as easy as just rocking up to the DMV and paying for a set of plates. Before registering I was required to have the car inspected by law enforcement for both a VIN and presence of safety equipment. This is the bare minimum, some states require additional inspection for quality of construction and engineering.
  - learc83 8y ago
    None of the regulations you're talking about are designed to prevent a car from intentionally being used as a weapon, which is what the OP is arguing for. We don't have laws requiring we install security devices in our cars for instance (like some jurisdictions do with trigger locks). Regulating drones might prevent some accidents and nuisance complaints, but it isn't going to stop people from using them for terrorist attacks.
    - aqme28 8y ago
      Laws can't "prevent" misuse of that kind. They add roadblocks, and for that they are valuable.
      - learc83 8y ago
        Of course they can't. If you want to be pedantic s/prevent/make it harder/. The point still stands. Automobile regulations weren't designed to make it harder for terrorist to use cars as intentional weapons. They do a very poor job at that, and if that were their intended purpose, they wouldn't be worth the cost. Requiring licenses to operate drones may or may not be worth the cost. If it is, it won't be because it prevents terrorism.
learc83 8y ago
People use all manner of electronics to build detonation devices for bombs. Do you want to regulate cell phones and alarm clocks like weapons too? Drones are too easy to build and conceal to effectively prevent determined attackers from getting them and using them. Regulations are aimed at preventing accidents and nuisance incidents, not terrorism.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  People use all manner of electronics to build detonation devices for bombs. Explosives are also used in bombs, and those are heavily regulated.
  - learc83 8y ago
    Which is why I referenced detonation mechanisms. The drone attacks the OP is referencing also used explosives.
    - draugadrotten 8y ago
      Your line of thought is interesting, that cell phones (should not) be regulated despite their use as detonation mechanism. If I think along those lines, the drone attacks are using drones as the delivery mechanism for the explosives, and whatever they are using for detonation mechanism is not interesting here. The explosives are regulated. So should the delivery mechanism be regulated? I think yes-- other delivery mechanisms for explosives to a target are guns, cannons, rockets... all regulated.
      - learc83 8y ago
        Many delivery mechanisms for explosives aren't regulated because like everything it requires a cost benefit analysis. Can we effectively prevent bad actors from acquiring them without too much cost to everyone else? (plus how bad is it if bad actors acquire them) For some things the answer is yes : rockets, missiles etc... For others no: slingshots, skateboards, lawnmowers, scooters, remote control cars etc.... Drones are too easy to build to effectively prevent bad actors from acquiring them without a huge cost to society as a whole. Restricting all the components you'd need to prevent a terrorist from building their own drone is just too disruptive. Less restrictive regulations like requiring licensing may be effective for other purposes, but not for preventing drone terrorism.
Udik 8y ago
I'm sure the mandatory training course will stop the terrorists from using their drones. As much as the need for a driving license is stopping them from using cars as weapons.
philipodonnell 8y ago
> Unfortunately, this means [thing] will need to be regulated like they are weapons, because they are used as weapons. What a ridiculous statement. You can use this wording to justify the regulation of almost anything since almost anything can be used as a weapon if the user is determined enough.
tfolbrecht 8y ago
I didn't realize that was legal. Europe must be a super scary.
tfolbrecht 8y ago
I didn't realize that was legal. Europe must be a super scary place.

Raphmedia 8y ago

Car bombs are rampant but cars are not treated as weapons except (somewhat) for vehicular manslaughter.

draugadrotten 8y ago
Car analogies are always good. Well, cars must undergo heavy certification and testing before being allowed on public roads. Operators must undergo certified training and be certified before operating cars on public roads. Every car is registered and tracked with a visible marking. Cars are limited in how fast they can go, and how much emissions they can have and more. I believe these kinds of measures will be put in place for drones as well: only certified drones with enforced technical limitations of speed and height, certified operators only ,and remotely visible (rfid) license plates.
- wnevets 8y ago
  It's always odd to see people choosing one of the most regulated products on the market for those kinds of arguments.
- learc83 8y ago
  This works for cars because cars are too big to be easily concealable Most of regulations you mention also do nothing to stop cars from being used as weapons, so they are completely irrelevant to your point. The few regulations you mentioned that do provide some deterrent to being used as weapons weren't intended for that purpose, and are easily circumvented by determined attackers anyway.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > This works for cars because cars are too big to be easily concealable Drones in the skies aren't necessarily easily concealable either. If they are requires to have some sort of identifier (RFID), it's not too hard to check what's in the skies, or note what's lower around points of interest. Both cars and drones are fairly easily transported by other vehicles. Cars may require a trailer, open or enclosed, but it's hardly rare to see. Drones are slightly easier to transport in that respect, but not enough that I think it makes a difference.
    - learc83 8y ago
      >Drones in the skies aren't necessarily easily concealable either Drones can fly either high enough to not be easily seen (and they are too small to show up on most radars) Or they can be launched near a target and fly low. >Both cars and drones are fairly easily transported by other vehicles. But you need another licensed vehicle at that point to transport it. You can put a drone in a backpack and walk, ride a bike, take a bus etc... >Drones are slightly easier to transport in that respect, but not enough that I think it makes a difference. You think that a 2 pound drone is only "slightly easier" to transport surreptitiously than a 2 ton car?
      - kbenson 8y ago
        > Drones can fly either high enough to not be easily seen By eye, yes. By digital camera? That would have to be pretty high. At least on clear days. But there are days where visibility is low in general, and that goes for cars too. > Or they can be launched near a target and fly low. High risk targets should have additional safeguards. It's not hard for cars to get to some locations just because they aren't allowed, but because there is additional security and physical obstructions. One solution never covers all cases, and we shouldn't expect it to. > But you need another licensed vehicle at that point to transport it. Or you hire someone to tow it. Yes, it's harder. But also it's not like every time you get behind the wheel of a car someone checks that you're licensed. How many times have you had your license checked while driving? How many hours have you driven? > You think that a 2 pound drone is only "slightly easier" to transport surreptitiously than a 2 ton car? I think in the case you are planning to use it illegally, it's not really that much of a difference. Seriously, you can probably walk into any rundown part of town, buy some older beat up car for cash for under $1000 dollars, and immediately use it for your purpose while the title change is in the mail (for states that allow that), if the person selling it really even cares. Drones are new, so there's less infrastructure to track and manage them, but it's not really all that different IMO, it's just a matter of time.
- AngryData 8y ago
  You need zero of those things to own or drive a vehicle on private property. It has merit for flying in public parks and the like, but flying around some private property would be comparable to driving around your house/field/private track.
zrobotics 8y ago
At least in the US, cars are very much treated as though they are dangerous enough to effectively be weapons. They must be titled, and are required to have an individual serial number (the VIN). Additionally, in order to operate one the operator must be certified by the state to be competent (driver's license). They are recognized as being dangerous enough to require special insurance, and many states require annual inspect to certify they are safe to operate. And speaking as someone who has registered a home-built car in Wyoming (which is both figuratively and literally the wild west for vehicle regulations) it isn't as easy as just rocking up to the DMV and paying for a set of plates. Before registering I was required to have the car inspected by law enforcement for both a VIN and presence of safety equipment. This is the bare minimum, some states require additional inspection for quality of construction and engineering.
- learc83 8y ago
  None of the regulations you're talking about are designed to prevent a car from intentionally being used as a weapon, which is what the OP is arguing for. We don't have laws requiring we install security devices in our cars for instance (like some jurisdictions do with trigger locks). Regulating drones might prevent some accidents and nuisance complaints, but it isn't going to stop people from using them for terrorist attacks.
  - aqme28 8y ago
    Laws can't "prevent" misuse of that kind. They add roadblocks, and for that they are valuable.
    - learc83 8y ago
      Of course they can't. If you want to be pedantic s/prevent/make it harder/. The point still stands. Automobile regulations weren't designed to make it harder for terrorist to use cars as intentional weapons. They do a very poor job at that, and if that were their intended purpose, they wouldn't be worth the cost. Requiring licenses to operate drones may or may not be worth the cost. If it is, it won't be because it prevents terrorism.

learc83 8y ago

People use all manner of electronics to build detonation devices for bombs. Do you want to regulate cell phones and alarm clocks like weapons too? Drones are too easy to build and conceal to effectively prevent determined attackers from getting them and using them. Regulations are aimed at preventing accidents and nuisance incidents, not terrorism.

reaperducer 8y ago
People use all manner of electronics to build detonation devices for bombs. Explosives are also used in bombs, and those are heavily regulated.
- learc83 8y ago
  Which is why I referenced detonation mechanisms. The drone attacks the OP is referencing also used explosives.
  - draugadrotten 8y ago
    Your line of thought is interesting, that cell phones (should not) be regulated despite their use as detonation mechanism. If I think along those lines, the drone attacks are using drones as the delivery mechanism for the explosives, and whatever they are using for detonation mechanism is not interesting here. The explosives are regulated. So should the delivery mechanism be regulated? I think yes-- other delivery mechanisms for explosives to a target are guns, cannons, rockets... all regulated.
    - learc83 8y ago
      Many delivery mechanisms for explosives aren't regulated because like everything it requires a cost benefit analysis. Can we effectively prevent bad actors from acquiring them without too much cost to everyone else? (plus how bad is it if bad actors acquire them) For some things the answer is yes : rockets, missiles etc... For others no: slingshots, skateboards, lawnmowers, scooters, remote control cars etc.... Drones are too easy to build to effectively prevent bad actors from acquiring them without a huge cost to society as a whole. Restricting all the components you'd need to prevent a terrorist from building their own drone is just too disruptive. Less restrictive regulations like requiring licensing may be effective for other purposes, but not for preventing drone terrorism.

Udik 8y ago

I'm sure the mandatory training course will stop the terrorists from using their drones. As much as the need for a driving license is stopping them from using cars as weapons.

philipodonnell 8y ago

> Unfortunately, this means [thing] will need to be regulated like they are weapons, because they are used as weapons. What a ridiculous statement. You can use this wording to justify the regulation of almost anything since almost anything can be used as a weapon if the user is determined enough.

tfolbrecht 8y ago

I didn't realize that was legal. Europe must be a super scary.

tfolbrecht 8y ago

I didn't realize that was legal. Europe must be a super scary place.