5 ms·

Cheap? Just wait until they make an example out of those two. It definitely won't be a cheap event for them.

joering2 8y ago
Right before Christmas... oh boy. I bet the terrorism charges will be thrown at those two. Anyone can come up with similar case from the recent past ?
- tushar-r 8y ago
  Law was passed sometime ago - it's up to five years in prison: https://www.techradar.com/news/new-uk-drone-laws-come-into-force-with-a-maximum-penalty-of-five-years-in-prison https://www.techradar.com/news/new-uk-drone-laws-come-into-f...
  - blackstrips 8y ago
    Just 5 years? I suppose it’s good from a rehabilitation perspective but it’s kind of weak as a deterrent - where 10 years might be more appropriate.
    - dingaling 8y ago
      Why even five years? Let the airport,airlines and insurera sue any culprits for losses. Why should I pay for their incarceration? No harm was done to persons or property.
      - leetcrew 8y ago
        in an ideal world, all non-physical harm would be handled this way. unfortunately, such attackers can cause multi-million dollar (or pound, in this case) losses in a short period of time and probably have minimal assets. you might get a few grand out of them if you're lucky.
        mdpopescu 8y ago
        It's called indentured servitude [1] and it's still practiced in the US [2], but only to benefit the state and its cronies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude_in_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude_in_the_Am... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-...
    - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
      If five years won’t deter you I doubt ten would.
    - Jonnax 8y ago
      The perception of 5 or 10 years as a deterrent doesn't make a difference to the average person.
      - blackstrips 8y ago
        Citation needed. A decade in prison is twice 5 years. That’s a lot of time to waste. Edit: Guess downvotes are abused here too ... Edit2: Would be interesting to see how low this post will go. Guess some people don’t like their abusing of the moderation system called out.
        DanBC 8y ago
        Citation needed that longer sentences work as a deterrent. The reason you don't steal from your coworkers has little to do with the sentence that would be imposed and a lot to do with your personal values: you know theft is wrong. Edit: talking about downvoyes will always attract downvotes. HN's voting culture may not even what you're used to. People can down item for any, or for no, reason. A few people can down vote, but most people with an account can upvote. Corrective upvote will often be provided - there are people on HN who look for unfairly downvoted posts to supply corrective upvote. If your post is downvoted and remains downvoted it means that someone downvoted it, and no-one else who read it thought it deserved different. Phrases like [citation needed] are often going to get downvoted. Downvotes are likely because you're claiming prison is a deterrent and that longer sentences are a stronger deterrent with nothing to support that claim, while asking someone else to support their claim that longer sentences aren't a deterrent.
      - mynameishere 8y ago
        Actually the only psychological profile that wouldn't be deterred by 10 vs 5 years would be the psychopath (who is largely immune to punishment, and often regards it with complete serenity). An "average person" would make tremendous sacrifices to get 5 instead of 10. Plea bargain justice makes this clear.
        jimnotgym 8y ago
  - ghaff 8y ago
    I'm sure they can find lots more to charge these two with. I fully expect they'll be put away for a very long time.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      I suspect they won't get a prison sentence, or if they do it'll be months not years.
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      15 activists were just convicted under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act for obstructing a deportation flight: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stansted-15-deportation-stop-london-airport-guilty-verdict-terror-a8675966.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stansted-15-depo... The 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act says: "It is also... an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon unlawfully and intentionally to disrupt the services of such an aerodrome in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome." and provides that "A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life."
genocidicbunny 8y ago
Perhaps for these two it won't be so cheap, but they just PoC'd a drone DOS rather effectively. For example, if the control system can be adapted to be driven very remotely (think US military drones -- operator sits in an office building in the US, drone is flying around the middle east) then there's no reason this couldn't be perpetrated by someone very far away, potentially outside of the jurisdiction of the country they're unleashing their drones on. They could go and set up the base stations months in advance of an attack in relatively remote areas, as little drone sleeper cells. When the attack happens, the perpetrators are far away, and much harder to stop. I expect we'll see more of these, but I hope that this attack made it very clear that there needs to be more effective ways to track and disable rogue drones. I do wonder how they finally found these two (and if they are even the actual perpetrators) but I think they're gonna want to keep those cards close to their chest.
- kijin 8y ago
  I'm kinda surprised that after three days of disruption, the British authorities still haven't found a way to shoot down the drones. It was just a DoS this time, but there could very well be an explosive payload the next time. Drones could enter secure facilities, take pictures, infiltrate or exfiltrate various objects, and even press buttons using 3D-printed appendages. Criminals of the future won't even need to be on the same continent to get past physical security.
  - tushar-r 8y ago
    Heard on the news that they did not want to shoot it down to avoid collateral damage from bullets falling around.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    The UK is much more gun-averse than anywhere else I’ve been. Even the police are not routinely armed with only a few exceptions (airports being one, but the point is about the attitude).
    - genocidicbunny 8y ago

Right before Christmas... oh boy. I bet the terrorism charges will be thrown at those two. Anyone can come up with similar case from the recent past ?

tushar-r 8y ago
Law was passed sometime ago - it's up to five years in prison: https://www.techradar.com/news/new-uk-drone-laws-come-into-force-with-a-maximum-penalty-of-five-years-in-prison https://www.techradar.com/news/new-uk-drone-laws-come-into-f...
- blackstrips 8y ago
  Just 5 years? I suppose it’s good from a rehabilitation perspective but it’s kind of weak as a deterrent - where 10 years might be more appropriate.
  - dingaling 8y ago
    Why even five years? Let the airport,airlines and insurera sue any culprits for losses. Why should I pay for their incarceration? No harm was done to persons or property.
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      in an ideal world, all non-physical harm would be handled this way. unfortunately, such attackers can cause multi-million dollar (or pound, in this case) losses in a short period of time and probably have minimal assets. you might get a few grand out of them if you're lucky.
      - mdpopescu 8y ago
        It's called indentured servitude [1] and it's still practiced in the US [2], but only to benefit the state and its cronies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude_in_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude_in_the_Am... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-labor-in-america/406177/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-...
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    If five years won’t deter you I doubt ten would.
  - Jonnax 8y ago
    The perception of 5 or 10 years as a deterrent doesn't make a difference to the average person.
    - blackstrips 8y ago
      Citation needed. A decade in prison is twice 5 years. That’s a lot of time to waste. Edit: Guess downvotes are abused here too ... Edit2: Would be interesting to see how low this post will go. Guess some people don’t like their abusing of the moderation system called out.
      - DanBC 8y ago
        Citation needed that longer sentences work as a deterrent. The reason you don't steal from your coworkers has little to do with the sentence that would be imposed and a lot to do with your personal values: you know theft is wrong. Edit: talking about downvoyes will always attract downvotes. HN's voting culture may not even what you're used to. People can down item for any, or for no, reason. A few people can down vote, but most people with an account can upvote. Corrective upvote will often be provided - there are people on HN who look for unfairly downvoted posts to supply corrective upvote. If your post is downvoted and remains downvoted it means that someone downvoted it, and no-one else who read it thought it deserved different. Phrases like [citation needed] are often going to get downvoted. Downvotes are likely because you're claiming prison is a deterrent and that longer sentences are a stronger deterrent with nothing to support that claim, while asking someone else to support their claim that longer sentences aren't a deterrent.
    - mynameishere 8y ago
      Actually the only psychological profile that wouldn't be deterred by 10 vs 5 years would be the psychopath (who is largely immune to punishment, and often regards it with complete serenity). An "average person" would make tremendous sacrifices to get 5 instead of 10. Plea bargain justice makes this clear.
      - jimnotgym 8y ago
- ghaff 8y ago
  I'm sure they can find lots more to charge these two with. I fully expect they'll be put away for a very long time.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    I suspect they won't get a prison sentence, or if they do it'll be months not years.
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    15 activists were just convicted under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act for obstructing a deportation flight: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stansted-15-deportation-stop-london-airport-guilty-verdict-terror-a8675966.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stansted-15-depo... The 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act says: "It is also... an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon unlawfully and intentionally to disrupt the services of such an aerodrome in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome." and provides that "A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life."

genocidicbunny 8y ago

Perhaps for these two it won't be so cheap, but they just PoC'd a drone DOS rather effectively. For example, if the control system can be adapted to be driven very remotely (think US military drones -- operator sits in an office building in the US, drone is flying around the middle east) then there's no reason this couldn't be perpetrated by someone very far away, potentially outside of the jurisdiction of the country they're unleashing their drones on. They could go and set up the base stations months in advance of an attack in relatively remote areas, as little drone sleeper cells. When the attack happens, the perpetrators are far away, and much harder to stop. I expect we'll see more of these, but I hope that this attack made it very clear that there needs to be more effective ways to track and disable rogue drones. I do wonder how they finally found these two (and if they are even the actual perpetrators) but I think they're gonna want to keep those cards close to their chest.

kijin 8y ago
I'm kinda surprised that after three days of disruption, the British authorities still haven't found a way to shoot down the drones. It was just a DoS this time, but there could very well be an explosive payload the next time. Drones could enter secure facilities, take pictures, infiltrate or exfiltrate various objects, and even press buttons using 3D-printed appendages. Criminals of the future won't even need to be on the same continent to get past physical security.
- tushar-r 8y ago
  Heard on the news that they did not want to shoot it down to avoid collateral damage from bullets falling around.
- ben_w 8y ago
  The UK is much more gun-averse than anywhere else I’ve been. Even the police are not routinely armed with only a few exceptions (airports being one, but the point is about the attitude).
  - genocidicbunny 8y ago