4 ms·

Could be any number of defense contractors, military, or LEO recklessly testing out a high end drone, then breaking the rules to avoid consequences. Is there a

• jvanderbot 5y ago
  Right, this is why I'm confused. There's no play by any sufficiently advanced adversary that makes sense. Except domestic terrorism. A fairly rich / savvy domestic actor with bad intent might be interested in seeing if they can fly about with a fast / large drone. Prior to, you know, equipping that drone with something bad.
  • gpm 5y ago
    Why domestic? The US isn't lacking in international adversaries that would be interested in the ability to execute low cost attacks against critical infrastructure. If it was domestic terrorists it seems likely they would have seized the opportunity to do damage immediately instead of showing their hand like this. An "advanced persistent threat" (such as a foreign country) to borrow from the computer security world seems more likely to take this sort of "test but don't actually damage anything" approach.
    • bilbo0s 5y ago
      Foreign states have the resources to build their own field tests. But time will tell. In fact it already has. We just need to wait for the investigation to complete. My own money would be on a terrorist organization. A bit less certain that it would be domestic, but domestic is still more probable than foreign in my mind. The past few years, and the past year in particular, has shown me that our domestic terrorists on the left and the right are bat$#!t crazy. But as I said, we'll see.
    • jvanderbot 5y ago
      I suppose I mis-spoke. Could easily be a domestic ally of a foreign adversary.
• ericbarrett 5y ago
  I can't imagine a defense contractor imperiling their flow of money when they could certainly arrange to test at White Sands or some such. This kind of thing is straight to jail, do pass Go, do not collect $2 billion. LEO, same; perhaps they might play loose with the law, but around refueling infrastructure and airports? That brings the Feds in 100%. Again, straight to jail. What is the risk/reward here? A three-letter agency doing a "red team" penetration test, perhaps. But why do it with a secret modified drone? And buzzing a CBP helicopter?
  • unanswered 5y ago
    So the argument is "no one commits crimes except for terrorists"? I'm afraid I'm not convinced.
    • bilbo0s 5y ago
      I may be mistaken, but I think the argument being made is more like, "no one commits crimes, or any acts really, without a motive." These people, at least their leadership, have significant motive to not commit an act like this. My money would be on terrorists as well, but that's why we have investigations. Let's see where the satellite photos take us.
      • unanswered 5y ago
        But that's the same argument, right? The "motive not to commit an act like this" which the article provides is fear of prosecution; so if this argument went through it would just as well be an argument against any crime ever occurring. Why would anyone ever rob a bank when you can earn money legally?
    • 0xdeadbeefbabe 5y ago
      Also everyone is rational--but isn't it a happy surprise "nation-states" didn't come up again?
    • HideousKojima 5y ago
      No, the argument is that the incentives aren't really there for other possible groups to commit this crime since they have legal alternatives to what was done. Doesn't make it impossible, just less likely.
• OnlyOneCannolo 5y ago
  It could be probing the response to a drone intrusion for the purpose of using drones as weapons in the future.
• pueblito 5y ago
  > Is there any intelligence that a drone that size could provide that you couldn't get from a combination of satellites and just driving around a decent camera? Dropping disguised sensors for espionage comes immediately to mind