> But as far as I can tell, the consequences appear to be foreseen in this case. It’s a drone that goes boom when next to someone. The immediate second order e

> But as far as I can tell, the consequences appear to be foreseen in this case. It’s a drone that goes boom when next to someone. The immediate second order effect is, people start buying drones programmed to destroy a drone seeking them out. This should be much less controversial than the first drone, since it's not operating on a human target. Now the first drone needs to be able to eliminate one -- and shortly, multiple -- drone(s) before then destroying the human target. The defending drone(s) will certainly increase in number and firepower. It's basically a straight line to automated warfare in the streets with no regard for collateral damage. The hurdles, of course, would be regulation on the ability to purchase drones, and the permitted level of firepower. I don't like the idea of us negotiating the laws around that while drones are causing collateral damage in an urban (or any) environment.