5 ms·

> conversation starter at best. I agree. We need to be critical of this idea because, as one of my design professors taught us, designers often "win" because

> conversation starter at best. I agree. We need to be critical of this idea because, as one of my design professors taught us, designers often "win" because they are the first ones to get their ideas out there and thus control the conversation. I personally don't want anything dangerous or loud flying within a quarter mile of me. It's a cool hobby to do in a field, but those things in suburban or city environments could be looking into windows to see who's home, aiming bullets at kindergarten teachers or piling up C4 on a mall rooftop with next to no accountability or policing. Cars and people can do all the bad things I'm talking about, but there are license plates and cops. Looking at the frequency of attacks where non-traditional policing is the only option (e.g. online) tells us drone crime will be rampant, perpetrated by a spectrum of interests from foreign governments to financial crime syndicates, abusers and corrupt and paranoid politicians. All other dangerous networks like highways, runways and gas pipelines are tightly regulated. Drones belong in that category.

enraged_camel 11y ago
It's incredibly depressing that insane scenarios like drones piling C4 explosives on mall rooftops has become a major concern to the point where people will reject an entire category of technological devices that can otherwise massively improve (and even save) lives if used at scale. I guess all the media and government fearmongering since 9/11 has been successful. When someone pitches a piece of tech, people now immediately think of how that tech can be used by Bad People to do Bad Things. I would expect Hacker News of all places to not succumb to this type of irrational paranoia. But I guess we are all human in the end.
serge2k 11y ago
wow, you are either incredibly paranoid or just a champion at spreading FUD.
JackFr 11y ago
C4 on the mall is not the real issue (although it's always interesting to see how technological changes change the face of criminal behavior.) The real issue is that I don't want a drone highway over my house. If I don't want planes flying over my house, all night and day, I don't live by an airport. If I don't want traffic noise, I don't live by a highway. But if Amazon decides that 300 feet above my house is the best route for deliveries or some other logistical exercise, I have far less recourse than I would for a road or an airport.
- rpcope1 11y ago
  I think if they're only flying at 300ft, this is within the Supreme Court established zone above property in which things like drones would be considering trepassing. In some states like hopefully my own, this may also be grounds to shoot the drone down.
  - caskance 11y ago
    If a human trespassed on your property, would your first response be to shoot him?
  - Vexs 11y ago
    Shooting anything out of the sky, at any height, is technically a felony.
  - Vexs 11y ago
    Shooting any aircraft out of the sky, at any height, is technically a felony.
0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
Dude, stop giving the drones ideas.
murbard2 11y ago
Piling C4 on a mall rooftop is already illegal. There is no need to make it "even more illegal" by regulating drones, and there is no hope that such a regulation can successfully deter such use, short of completely banning drones.
- chillingeffect 11y ago
  Cars are regulated, guns are regulated, slingshots are regulated, motorcycles are regulated, noise is regulated, EMR is regulated, medicine is regulated, knives are regulated, RC airplanes are regulated. Anything that can cause danger is regulated. Leaving drones unregulated is absurd. There is tremendous likelihood that regulating drones will lead to less crime. Banning drones within 1/4 mile of permanent residences and mall rooftops will prevent a large chunk of drone crime. Banning drones from mall areas is not about "making it more illegal to put C4 there." It's about empowering the law and private citizens to forcibly remove drones from a dangerous areas to prevent drone crime. If drones are allowed to buzz around malls, there are no police to determine if one of them is piling up C4 on the roof. If drones are not allowed to buzz around malls, as soon as one as spotted in a no-fly zone, it can be taken out to prevent a dangerous crime.
  - murbard2 11y ago
    If you enforce the regulation with automated anti-drone guns, then yes it will make a difference. I don't think it'll happen though, as such countermeasures haven't been developed for existing security threats.

enraged_camel 11y ago

It's incredibly depressing that insane scenarios like drones piling C4 explosives on mall rooftops has become a major concern to the point where people will reject an entire category of technological devices that can otherwise massively improve (and even save) lives if used at scale. I guess all the media and government fearmongering since 9/11 has been successful. When someone pitches a piece of tech, people now immediately think of how that tech can be used by Bad People to do Bad Things. I would expect Hacker News of all places to not succumb to this type of irrational paranoia. But I guess we are all human in the end.

serge2k 11y ago

wow, you are either incredibly paranoid or just a champion at spreading FUD.

JackFr 11y ago

C4 on the mall is not the real issue (although it's always interesting to see how technological changes change the face of criminal behavior.) The real issue is that I don't want a drone highway over my house. If I don't want planes flying over my house, all night and day, I don't live by an airport. If I don't want traffic noise, I don't live by a highway. But if Amazon decides that 300 feet above my house is the best route for deliveries or some other logistical exercise, I have far less recourse than I would for a road or an airport.

rpcope1 11y ago
I think if they're only flying at 300ft, this is within the Supreme Court established zone above property in which things like drones would be considering trepassing. In some states like hopefully my own, this may also be grounds to shoot the drone down.
- caskance 11y ago
  If a human trespassed on your property, would your first response be to shoot him?
- Vexs 11y ago
  Shooting anything out of the sky, at any height, is technically a felony.
- Vexs 11y ago
  Shooting any aircraft out of the sky, at any height, is technically a felony.

0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago

Dude, stop giving the drones ideas.

murbard2 11y ago

Piling C4 on a mall rooftop is already illegal. There is no need to make it "even more illegal" by regulating drones, and there is no hope that such a regulation can successfully deter such use, short of completely banning drones.

chillingeffect 11y ago
Cars are regulated, guns are regulated, slingshots are regulated, motorcycles are regulated, noise is regulated, EMR is regulated, medicine is regulated, knives are regulated, RC airplanes are regulated. Anything that can cause danger is regulated. Leaving drones unregulated is absurd. There is tremendous likelihood that regulating drones will lead to less crime. Banning drones within 1/4 mile of permanent residences and mall rooftops will prevent a large chunk of drone crime. Banning drones from mall areas is not about "making it more illegal to put C4 there." It's about empowering the law and private citizens to forcibly remove drones from a dangerous areas to prevent drone crime. If drones are allowed to buzz around malls, there are no police to determine if one of them is piling up C4 on the roof. If drones are not allowed to buzz around malls, as soon as one as spotted in a no-fly zone, it can be taken out to prevent a dangerous crime.
- murbard2 11y ago
  If you enforce the regulation with automated anti-drone guns, then yes it will make a difference. I don't think it'll happen though, as such countermeasures haven't been developed for existing security threats.