Riot Control Drones - Coming Soon to a Riot Near YOU!

[quade 3]

I'm actually a bit surprised South Africa has beaten some US manufacturer to the punch on this although I'm certain somebody is working on it as I type.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-drones-protests-weapons-crown-control-20140619-story.html

Also see;
http://www.desert-wolf.com/dw/products/unmanned-aerial-systems/skunk-riot-control-copter.html

True, a shotgun probably makes this a pile of goo pretty fast. PULL!

So, anyway, we now live in this world where a small, relatively cheap, short ranged robot can sneak up behind you and play tag. Not science fiction, but the real deal.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,623]

First the FAA needs to get its act together. Manufacturers are leery of investing in US distribution on account of ambiguity and negativity in the US regulations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

kallend

First the FAA needs to get its act together.

Yes . . . yes . . . they "need" to do that.

How about this instead? What "they" need to do is completely outlaw weaponization of drones for civilian use? This would include police.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,623]

quade

***First the FAA needs to get its act together.

Yes . . . yes . . . they "need" to do that.

How about this instead? What "they" need to do is completely outlaw weaponization of drones for civilian use? This would include police.

There are lots of legitimate, non invasive/intrusive uses for drones that are on hold because the FAA has missed deadline after deadline. Things like pipeline inspection, crop surveys, power line inspections, search and rescue, hazmat surveys... Most other developed nations already have regulations in place and are way ahead of the USA in these areas.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

I -think- you're missing the big picture here.

Weaponization of drones for civilian use is pretty much the worst thing that could possibly happen in terms of murder with complete deniability.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,623]

quade

I -think- you're missing the big picture here.

Weaponization of drones for civilian use is pretty much the worst thing that could possibly happen in terms of murder with complete deniability.

Oh, I get it OK. I was responding to your statement that you're "a bit surprised South Africa has beaten some US manufacturer to the punch". That doesn't surprise me in the least given the FAA's stance.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

kallend

There are lots of legitimate, non invasive/intrusive uses for drones that are on hold because the FAA has missed deadline after deadline. Things like pipeline inspection, crop surveys, power line inspections, search and rescue, hazmat surveys... Most other developed nations already have regulations in place and are way ahead of the USA in these areas.

Some SAR folks I know are ignoring that completely. I guess they'll deal with the fallout if it happens.

--
Rob

[champu 1]

quade

I -think- you're missing the big picture here.

Weaponization of drones for civilian use is pretty much the worst thing that could possibly happen in terms of murder with complete deniability.

...if you weaponize a drone, and murder someone with it, and you maintain complete deniability...

...well at least we'll nail the fucker for weaponizing the dr- wait, shit.

[kallend 1,623]

rhaig

***

There are lots of legitimate, non invasive/intrusive uses for drones that are on hold because the FAA has missed deadline after deadline. Things like pipeline inspection, crop surveys, power line inspections, search and rescue, hazmat surveys... Most other developed nations already have regulations in place and are way ahead of the USA in these areas.

Some SAR folks I know are ignoring that completely. I guess they'll deal with the fallout if it happens.

One S&R group has filed a lawsuit against the FAA after the FAA sent them a "Cease and Desist" letter. The briefs make interesting reading.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Calvin19 0]

That's adorable. It would take a marginally capable person throwing 20 feet of string tied to a rock to bring down and destroy a $20,000 machine.

Edit:yes, that is not the point of your post, but still. adorable.

[quade 3]

Agreed. I made a comment about using a shotgun, but there are a number of things that could possibly work.

That said, you have to know the drone is there in the first place and it has to be within your effective range. In a noisy riot situation you might not know it even exists until after it has been used.

Similarly, picture this scenario.

You've arrived at home after your day of work. You leave your car and head out to the patio where your wife and kids are. Behind your garage a drone pops up, shoots you and disappears into the sky and beyond the horizon of trees.

Now, give me a description of the shooter or find any evidence placing the shooter at the scene of the crime.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

quade

Similarly, picture this scenario...

Quickly! To the Legislature!

[quade 3]

champu

***Similarly, picture this scenario...

Quickly! To the Legislature!

Make fun if you'd like, but this scenario isn't limited to rednecks mounting .45s on quadcopters just to see if it could work (we had that discussion quite awhile back). This could be used by any corporation, cop or politician to suppress even the most minor of dissent and do it with complete immunity.

Do you really want to give the government that kind of an advantage?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

quade

******Similarly, picture this scenario...

Quickly! To the Legislature!

Make fun if you'd like, but this scenario isn't limited to rednecks mounting .45s on quadcopters just to see if it could work (we had that discussion quite awhile back). This could be used by any corporation, cop or politician to suppress even the most minor of dissent and do it with complete immunity.

It sounds like if someone is murdered then you'd probably want to conduct a murder investigation. Whether or not it was legal to have manufactured or configured the drone that was used to do it will not assist you in catching the murderer.

I dislike going down the whole "criminals ignore laws so why have laws" rabbit hole as much as anyone, but some laws passed out of frustration or fright are truly hopeless. De Leon's "ghost gun" bill has a similar problem. You describe a scary scenario where someone goes from zero to successful murder through a series of completely untraceable and undetectable steps. "Look how easy it is to get away with it! We shall make one of the undetectable steps illegal!"

Your very rationale for needing the law in the first place contains the explanation for why the law won't work.

quade

Do you really want to give the government that kind of an advantage?

Devil's advocate: Hey, at least if the police send a drone or a robot in they can't claim that the officer felt his life was in danger and that's why he or she (or a group) gunned the suspect down.

[quade 3]

You still seem to have missed the point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bolas 5]

They appear to have a solution for accountability.

Quote

The Desert Wolf Pangolin ground control station is used for system management. What makes the Pangolin unique is the operator and his team are also under full video and audio surveillance. Every move, every decision, every command is recorded.

Even the most autonomous device still can only follow instructions and decision paths.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[quade 3]

Uh . . .

Quote

Every move, every decision, every command is recorded.

BY WHO? The operators of the drone!

And, of course, that only addresses this particular drone and non-covert situations.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

quade

You still seem to have missed the point.

Apparently.

My understanding of your point is that "Weaponization of drones for civilian use is pretty much the worst thing that could possibly happen in terms of murder with complete deniability" and that "they should completely outlaw it."

Now you go.

[quade 3]

In your posts it appears as if you're fine with the idea as long as everyone has access to it.

I'm saying nobody in the civilian world should have access to anything with this much potential for abuse.

Would outlawing it stop a determined person from making their own? No. Probably not. However, unless you make manufacture or possession of such a device illegal, you just open up assassination as a "hobby." Again, not just to folks like you and me but to virtually anyone including that neighbor down the street who doesn't like how you dive on "his" street in front of his kids to the guy you're in competition with at work to any government jerk with a grudge.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

kallend

One S&R group has filed a lawsuit against the FAA after the FAA sent them a "Cease and Desist" letter. The briefs make interesting reading.

The guys I know have publicized their use of drones in the Philippines after the typhoon there last year. Their use here is kept quiet.

--
Rob

[Bolas 5]

quade

In your posts it appears as if you're fine with the idea as long as everyone has access to it.

I'm saying nobody in the civilian world should have access to anything with this much potential for abuse.

Would outlawing it stop a determined person from making their own? No. Probably not. However, unless you make manufacture or possession of such a device illegal, you just open up assassination as a "hobby."

So your concern is not government assassination by drones, but private citizens and companies doing it? They can do so now with other tools.

As for the "hobby" comment: if someone wants to kill someone, there are far cheaper and easier ways to do it. Probably less risk of being caught too.

Punish the criminal, not the equipment they use.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[quade 3]

Bolas

Quote

I'm saying nobody in the civilian world should have access to anything with this much potential for abuse.

Would outlawing it stop a determined person from making their own? No. Probably not. However, unless you make manufacture or possession of such a device illegal, you just open up assassination as a "hobby."

So your concern is not government assassination by drones, but private citizens and companies doing it?

The only part of the government that isn't civilian is the military. The CIA is a civilian organization. So is the NSA, FBI, ATF.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

quade

In your posts it appears as if you're fine with the idea as long as everyone has access to it.

I'm saying nobody in the civilian world should have access to anything with this much potential for abuse.

Would outlawing it stop a determined person from making their own? No. Probably not. However, unless you make manufacture or possession of such a device illegal, you just open up assassination as a "hobby." Again, not just to folks like you and me but to virtually anyone including that neighbor down the street who doesn't like how you dive on "his" street in front of his kids to the guy you're in competition with at work to any government jerk with a grudge.

I'm not "fine" with the idea of everyone having armed drones any more than I'm "fine" with everyone having firearms (i.e. not especially fine.) I don't even disagree with the principle that no one in the civilian world should be flying armed drones around. But I will pretty much always disagree with a motion for legislative action until we square away details of how that might work or how that might help the situation, because until you do that you cannot claim it's better than the null solution: don't pass more laws.

A sort of application of the adage, "Don't speak unless it improves upon silence."

An armed drone consists of a) a drone that is large enough to carry a weapon of some sort, b) a weapon of some sort, and c) a mechanism capable of employing the weapon. If someone is "on the brink" or has all three of these things and a desire/conviction to assemble them and murder someone with it, then a law that targets them in this phase of the act would simply be making murder more illegal. (your "determined person" if you will.)

So how do you regulate any or all of these prior to this phase? Do you think it's feasible to identify and prohibit items from a) and c) without a whole mess of collateral damage to the technological advancement of drones for uses we don't want to prohibit? How specific in purpose do you imagine items in group c) to be? Do restrictions on items from group b) really need to be made in the specific context of drones and, if so, how could they? Do you make "constructive possession" illegal? (i.e. one is allowed to own a handgun OR a drone, but never both?)

And even with these problems addressed, I think building and employing an armed drone to murder someone in an effort to avoid an eye-witness placing you at the scene very quickly becomes zero-sum for your chances of getting away with it.

[champu 1]

quade

***So your concern is not government assassination by drones, but private citizens and companies doing it?

The only part of the government that isn't civilian is the military. The CIA is a civilian organization. So is the NSA, FBI, ATF.

Correction: the NSA is not a civilian organization although they do employ civilians (most notably the deputy director.) But the agency is always headed by a commissioned officer of the armed forces who reports up through the Secretary of Defense.

[quade 3]

Got me there. I got carried away with alphabet agencies.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver