5 ms·

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 t

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.
    - trhway 8y ago
      >The explosives are regulated. given that fireworks and powder are easily available (re: Tsarnaevs) or relative availability of ANFO (re: McVeigh) and similar stuff or that just one visit to Home Depot allows you to buy components making for a pretty good explosive, i think the explosives are regulated mostly to avoid them lying freely around under the kitchen sinks and in the garages and to avoid being handled by clueless people, not to protect from terrorists.
      - reaperducer 8y ago
        just one visit to Home Depot allows you to buy components making for a pretty good explosive It also gets you a visit from the feds. Those sorts of purchases are tracked very closely since Mcveigh.
        philipkglass 8y ago
        Buying explosive precursors together does not automatically trigger any sort of investigation. I bought acetone, hydrogen peroxide (in the form of a wood bleaching kit), and hydrochloric acid together in 2002 at a Home Depot and never got the slightest bit of attention. I also bought an 80 pound sack of ammonium nitrate from a fertilizer dealer in 2002 with cash. I didn't show ID. The employees didn't grill me at all. I was pretty surprised, actually. I thought there would be some sort of tracking in place six years after the OKC bombing and 1 year after the 9/11 attacks. Maybe they only start tracking when you try to buy it by the tonne. Maybe my appearance (clean shaven white guy with glasses, no tattoos) gave me a pass where other sorts of buyers might need to show ID or explain why they're buying.
        trhway 8y ago
        just googled - you were 9 years too early :) https://www.businessinsider.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-ammonium-nitrate-sales-regulated-2011-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-ammoni... " the new legislation will require anyone buying more than 25 pounds to register, be screened against a known terrorist list, and require any thefts to be reported within 24 hours. "
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - jsjohnst 8y ago
      You realize orders of magnitude more explosives have been delivered via car/truck by terrorists than by any flying vehicle (not just hobby drones, but anything flying in the air). Should we heavily regulate land vehicles to, because ”stopping the terrorists is all that matters?”
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Cellular phone networks are heavily regulated, and the Feds can shut down public networks during periods of threat.
    - learc83 8y ago
      Cellular phone networks are heavily regulated for reasons completely unrelated to their potential use as remote detonators. You can buy 2 way radios with zero purchase restrictions that will also work for the same purpose.
      - Spooky23 8y ago
        The “kill switch” was absolutely developed for that purpose.
        learc83 8y ago
        When you say heavily regulated it has nothing to do with their potential use as weapons. The stated intent of the "kill switch" was for that purpose. The fact that the kill switch can't generally be used until after an attack is over, and that 2 way radios can be easily be used as a substitute means that it's not particular effective--there were likely ulterior motives for pushing for this ability. The 2013 shutdown of the BART network during protests shows that the government is at least as interested in suppressing protests are they are in stopping bombs from detonating. Either way the ability for the government to shutdown cell towers is irrelevant. Cell phones themselves aren't "regulated like weapons". I don't need to pass a background check to buy one. I don't need to be licensed to own one. We don't require owners to prove they have a legitimate need to own them, and we don't require owners to lock them up and report thefts the way we do with explosives. The reason we don't do these things is that the cost actually implementing all of that wouldn't be worth the benefit. You'd have to implement restrictions on anything with a radio, or anything that could be easily turned into a radio to have any meaningful impact on terrorism. The same is true of drones. You'd need to tightly restrict so many electronic components to actually deter determined attackers that it's not worth it.
- AngryData 8y ago
  Let me know when gunpowder, glycerin, or ammonia is regulated.
syoc 8y ago
You are no longer able to buy cash card plans for phones in my country without identifying yourself to the provider.
- learc83 8y ago
  What about alarm clocks?

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.
  - trhway 8y ago
    >The explosives are regulated. given that fireworks and powder are easily available (re: Tsarnaevs) or relative availability of ANFO (re: McVeigh) and similar stuff or that just one visit to Home Depot allows you to buy components making for a pretty good explosive, i think the explosives are regulated mostly to avoid them lying freely around under the kitchen sinks and in the garages and to avoid being handled by clueless people, not to protect from terrorists.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      just one visit to Home Depot allows you to buy components making for a pretty good explosive It also gets you a visit from the feds. Those sorts of purchases are tracked very closely since Mcveigh.
      - philipkglass 8y ago
        Buying explosive precursors together does not automatically trigger any sort of investigation. I bought acetone, hydrogen peroxide (in the form of a wood bleaching kit), and hydrochloric acid together in 2002 at a Home Depot and never got the slightest bit of attention. I also bought an 80 pound sack of ammonium nitrate from a fertilizer dealer in 2002 with cash. I didn't show ID. The employees didn't grill me at all. I was pretty surprised, actually. I thought there would be some sort of tracking in place six years after the OKC bombing and 1 year after the 9/11 attacks. Maybe they only start tracking when you try to buy it by the tonne. Maybe my appearance (clean shaven white guy with glasses, no tattoos) gave me a pass where other sorts of buyers might need to show ID or explain why they're buying.
        trhway 8y ago
        just googled - you were 9 years too early :) https://www.businessinsider.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-ammonium-nitrate-sales-regulated-2011-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-ammoni... " the new legislation will require anyone buying more than 25 pounds to register, be screened against a known terrorist list, and require any thefts to be reported within 24 hours. "
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jsjohnst 8y ago
    You realize orders of magnitude more explosives have been delivered via car/truck by terrorists than by any flying vehicle (not just hobby drones, but anything flying in the air). Should we heavily regulate land vehicles to, because ”stopping the terrorists is all that matters?”
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Cellular phone networks are heavily regulated, and the Feds can shut down public networks during periods of threat.
  - learc83 8y ago
    Cellular phone networks are heavily regulated for reasons completely unrelated to their potential use as remote detonators. You can buy 2 way radios with zero purchase restrictions that will also work for the same purpose.
    - Spooky23 8y ago
      The “kill switch” was absolutely developed for that purpose.
      - learc83 8y ago
        When you say heavily regulated it has nothing to do with their potential use as weapons. The stated intent of the "kill switch" was for that purpose. The fact that the kill switch can't generally be used until after an attack is over, and that 2 way radios can be easily be used as a substitute means that it's not particular effective--there were likely ulterior motives for pushing for this ability. The 2013 shutdown of the BART network during protests shows that the government is at least as interested in suppressing protests are they are in stopping bombs from detonating. Either way the ability for the government to shutdown cell towers is irrelevant. Cell phones themselves aren't "regulated like weapons". I don't need to pass a background check to buy one. I don't need to be licensed to own one. We don't require owners to prove they have a legitimate need to own them, and we don't require owners to lock them up and report thefts the way we do with explosives. The reason we don't do these things is that the cost actually implementing all of that wouldn't be worth the benefit. You'd have to implement restrictions on anything with a radio, or anything that could be easily turned into a radio to have any meaningful impact on terrorism. The same is true of drones. You'd need to tightly restrict so many electronic components to actually deter determined attackers that it's not worth it.
AngryData 8y ago
Let me know when gunpowder, glycerin, or ammonia is regulated.

syoc 8y ago

You are no longer able to buy cash card plans for phones in my country without identifying yourself to the provider.

learc83 8y ago
What about alarm clocks?