Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 15 2017, @11:32AM   Printer-friendly
from the plans-are-up-in-the-air dept.

Homeland Security bulletin warns of weaponized drones and threat to aviation

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an updated terror bulletin on Thursday highlighting the threat of weaponized drones, chemical attacks and the continued targeting of commercial aircraft.

"We continue to face one of the most challenging threat environments since 9/11, as foreign terrorist organizations exploit the internet to inspire, enable or direct individuals already here in the homeland to commit terrorist acts," reads the bulletin.

[...] "The current bulletin introduces unmanned aircraft systems as potential threats and highlights sustained concern regarding threats against commercial aviation and air cargo," said DHS acting press secretary Tyler Houlton in a statement.

There's been an "uptick in terrorist interest" in using unmanned aerial systems as weapons in the United States and other western countries, according to a senior DHS official. These tactics have been used by terrorists on the battlefield, and the department wants to "guard against those tactics being exported to the west," said the official. The official said that DHS wants to be "forward leaning" about seeing what terrorists are doing overseas and tactics they might adopt in the future.

Since the last bulletin, concerns about terrorist targeting aviation sector have grown, said the official. "[T]errorists continue to target commercial aviation and air cargo, including with concealed explosives," reads the updated bulletin.

Related: UK Criminals Use Drones To Case Burglary Targets
Drones Banned from Flying Within 32 Miles of Super Bowl
FAA Updates its Ban on Drones in Washington
Prison Blames Drone for Inmate's Escape
FAA Restricts Drone Operations Over 10 U.S. Landmarks


Original Submission

Related Stories

UK Criminals Use Drones To Case Burglary Targets 16 comments

Burglars in the UK are sending unmanned drones over houses in order to identify potential targets, police have warned. Suffolk Constabulary confirmed it had received at least one report of drones being used by burglars for surveillance of properties ("casing the joint"). Paul Ford, secretary of the Police Federation National Detectives Forum, said: "Drones can be noisy and very visible so hopefully criminals risk giving themselves away. If members of the public observe drones being used in areas which make them suspicious they should contact police using the 101 non-emergency number to report it."

Why not just shoot them down? "Oops I thought it was a bird." The task can surely be automated. Obligatory xkcd.

Drones Banned from Flying Within 32 Miles of Super Bowl 32 comments

Drones have been banned from flying within 32 miles of American Football's Super Bowl, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has said.

In a video to sports fans, the FAA warns the stadium is a "no-drone zone".

The restrictions cover anywhere within 32 miles of the Super Bowl stadium in Santa Clara, California, between 14.00 and 11.59 PST on 7 February.

FAA regulations also advise that "deadly force" may be used if a drone is perceived as a security threat.

The Super Bowl is the climax of the football season, and a crowd of 70,000 is expected for this year's game.

"Bring your lucky jersey, bring your facepaint, bring your team spirit," the video announces, "but leave your drone at home."


Original Submission

FAA Updates its Ban on Drones in Washington 13 comments

From the FAA News and Updates website:

Under the new procedures, hobbyists and recreational unmanned aircraft operators can fly aircraft that weigh less than 55 lbs. (including any attachments such as a camera) in the area between 15 and 30 miles of Washington, D.C. if the aircraft are registered and marked, and they follow specific operating conditions. The operating conditions require them to fly 400 feet or lower above the ground, stay in the operator's line of sight, only fly in clear conditions, and avoid other aircraft.

Do you think this will recover some good will for the FAA? Was the ban justified to begin with?


Original Submission

Prison Blames Drone for Inmate's Escape 21 comments

Officials at the Lieber Correctional Institution in Ridgeville, South Carolina say that a prisoner escaped by using wire cutters flown in by a drone:

A fugitive South Carolina inmate recaptured in Texas this week had chopped his way through a prison fence using wire cutters apparently dropped by a drone, prison officials said Friday. Jimmy Causey, 46, fled the Lieber Correctional Institution in Ridgeville, S.C., on the evening of July 4th after leaving a paper mache doll in his bed to fool guards into thinking he was asleep. He was not discovered missing until Wednesday afternoon.

[...] The director said he and other officials have sought federal help for years to combat the use of drones to drop contraband into prison. "It's a simple fix," Stirling said. "Allow us to block the signal. Allow us to stop them to have unfettered access ... They are physically incarcerated, but they are not virtually incarcerated." "As long as they have access to cellphones, this is just going to keep on happening and happening and happening," he said, The Post and Courier reported.

Also at LA Times and The Washington Post.


Original Submission

FAA Restricts Drone Operations Over 10 U.S. Landmarks 12 comments

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554340059/faa-restricts-drones-over-major-u-s-landmarks

The Federal Aviation Administration has issued a new regulation restricting unauthorized drone operations over 10 Department of Interior sites, including the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore.

[...] The announcement says the action comes at "the request of U.S. national security and law enforcement agencies." It says it marks the first time the FAA has restricted drone flights over Interior Department landmarks, although many of the sites were covered by a National Park Service ban on drones issued in 2014.

But that ban pertained to "launching, landing or operating unmanned aircraft" in national parks. The FAA's announcement includes the airspace above parks and landmarks.


Original Submission

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Warns Against Using Chinese Drones 40 comments

'We're Not Being Paranoid': U.S. Warns Of Spy Dangers Of Chinese-Made Drones

Drones have become an increasingly popular tool for industry and government. Electric utilities use them to inspect transmission lines. Oil companies fly them over pipelines. The Interior Department even deployed them to track lava flows at Hawaii's Kilauea volcano.

But the Department of Homeland Security is warning that drones manufactured by Chinese companies could pose security risks, including that the data they gather could be stolen.

The department sent out an alert on the subject on May 20, and a video on its website notes that drones in general pose multiple threats, including "their potential use for terrorism, mass casualty incidents, interference with air traffic, as well as corporate espionage and invasions of privacy." "We're not being paranoid," the video's narrator adds.

Related: Department of Homeland Security Terror Bulletin Warns of "Weaponized Drones"


Original Submission

FAA Warns of $25,000 Fine for "Weaponizing Drones" 36 comments

FAA threatens $25,000 fine for weaponizing drones

It's perfectly natural for a red-blooded American to, once they have procured their first real drone, experiment with attaching a flame thrower to it. But it turns out that this harmless hobby is frowned upon by the biggest buzzkills in the world... the feds.

Yes, the FAA has gone and published a notice that drones and weapons are "A Dangerous Mix." Well, that's arguable. But they're the authority here, so we have to hear them out.

"Perhaps you've seen online photos and videos of drones with attached guns, bombs, fireworks, flamethrowers, and other dangerous items. Do not consider attaching any items such as these to a drone because operating a drone with such an item may result in significant harm to a person and to your bank account."

Also at The Verge and PetaPixel.

Previously: Department of Homeland Security Terror Bulletin Warns of "Weaponized Drones"

Related: FAA Restricts Drone Operations Over 10 U.S. Landmarks
FAA Approves Blood Toting Drones at North Carolina Hospital
Commercial Drones Are Way More Popular Than the FAA Expected
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Warns Against Using Chinese Drones


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @12:46PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @12:46PM (#597260)

    The current bulletin introduces unmanned aircraft systems as potential threats

    Uh-huh. The rest of the world already knows about this. In fact, it was the US who was the first to use weaponized drones in civilian areas.

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by Nerdfest on Wednesday November 15 2017, @01:00PM (1 child)

      by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @01:00PM (#597264)

      This is like the Apple version of "introduces".

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:39PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:39PM (#597377)

        It also matches their definition of "courage".

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday November 15 2017, @03:50PM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @03:50PM (#597322) Homepage Journal

      You'd think it was Obama, he loved his drones, he sent a lot of them. It wasn't Obama. It was another terrible president, George W. Bush. He didn’t have the IQ to come up with drones. But he let his military use them. Sometimes even a very foolish person can make a smart move. And it's very smart, because we can blow up the bad guys anywhere in the world -- New York, if you're listening, I'm talking to you -- while our military is perfectly safe near Vegas. Near beautiful and fabulous Las Vegas, one of the safest places in the world. Probably the safest. And believe me, I'm keeping them busy. I have the best kill list. The best. #JOBS 🇺🇸

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday November 15 2017, @01:07PM (18 children)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 15 2017, @01:07PM (#597265) Journal

    Before you write this off as more silly "Dangerous Drones" FUD, consider that 200Kph RC Turbine Jets and 30Km+ range video and control systems are commercial civilian off-the shelf items. A $180 copy of realflight will teach you how to fly it too.

    In Iraq and Syria slower versions of these are being cobbled together from lawnmower engines and used for surveillance. The DJI multirotors you can get from Wal-Mart or Target are being used to drop grenades and AP mortar shells.

    It's only a matter of time before these are a newspaper headline.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @02:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @02:36PM (#597287)

      Fear, whether from DHS trying to justify their department/job or when an actual attack (staged or not) happens.
      Uncertainty, whether the loss of rights trumps 'improved' security measures.
      Doubt, whether any of this will help and whether giving up both your drones and privacy is worth it to save us from OMG t3h t3rr0r1stS.

      Sounds like the very definition of it to me.

    • (Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday November 15 2017, @03:12PM (7 children)

      by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @03:12PM (#597300) Homepage Journal

      30Km+ range video and control systems are commercial civilian off-the shelf items

      Can you provide examples of commercial versions of this?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday November 15 2017, @03:39PM (1 child)

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @03:39PM (#597313) Journal

        I interpreted it as "built from COTS parts".

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:45PM (#597380)

          I interpreted it as "built from COTS parts".

          That does make some sense as I know I could do it with modules intended or modified for amateur radio use but not within the weight requirements of the payload of an r/c jet. The transmitter capable of 30+km operation is going to be pretty heavy, limited to line of site, and most likely require a fairly sophisticated receiving antenna setup as well.

          With out some commercial equipment intended specifically for weight constrained environments I don't see how it is possible to get 30+km video out of a typical r/c jet.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday November 15 2017, @06:56PM (4 children)

        by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 15 2017, @06:56PM (#597407) Journal

        >> 30Km+ range video and control systems are commercial civilian off-the shelf items
        >Can you provide examples of commercial versions of this?

        http://www.dragonlinkrc.com/ [dragonlinkrc.com] is the one I use.

        • (Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday November 16 2017, @12:47AM (3 children)

          by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Thursday November 16 2017, @12:47AM (#597532) Homepage Journal

          Thanks for sharing that link. I'm curious about regulations - do you need a license to operate equipment with that much power? I'm in the US and I have a 1 watt 5.8 ghz transmitter I use with my hexacopter but I use it with my amateur radio license. Unlicensed transmitters can't be over a few hundred milliwatts afaik.

          • (Score: 1) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:54PM (2 children)

            by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:54PM (#600433) Journal

            Yes, the DragonLink is over the no-license power limit for 433 MHz at its maximum power level. A technician class license is sufficient for it.

            73, KJ4QCU

            • (Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:15PM

              by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:15PM (#600699) Homepage Journal

              433 MHz at its maximum power level

              Cool, 70cm! That's a great band. My rig can do SSB on 70cm and the noise floor is so low I can get full copy on stations that don't even move my S meter.

            • (Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:28PM

              by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:28PM (#600703) Homepage Journal

              I forgot to ask: do you know what modulation the transmitter is using? FM/AM/QAM?

              My transmitter is FM. It is possible though with a transmitter that uses QAM and a few specific frequencies in the 70cm band for an off the shelf cable-ready TV to receive ATV signals with nothing but an antenna. I think ATV (amateur TV) is pretty cool!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @04:36PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @04:36PM (#597343)

      It's only a matter of time before these are a newspaper headline.

      Getting there [infobae.com]

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 15 2017, @06:28PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 15 2017, @06:28PM (#597399) Journal

        It's probably a matter of even more time before these are newsworthy newspaper headlines.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @04:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @04:40PM (#597348)

      FUD.

      Same with all other "omg turristz!" news stories. Higher chance of dying from anything else,but please be afraid of THIS thing because it is convenient for our police state propaganda.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:54PM (#597386)

      if the a foreign nation state invades the US i'll be dropping grenades on them too. news at 11.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday November 15 2017, @06:44PM (2 children)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 15 2017, @06:44PM (#597402) Journal

      It's not silly, but it's also not a newly revealed danger. Airlines have been worried about this for years. Actually, they're more worried about careless people taking down a plane accidentally, and that's also a real danger...but not new.

      This is just the NHS trying to raise the level of paranoia. This time they picked a real danger, but that was almost irrelevant from their point of view.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 15 2017, @10:12PM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @10:12PM (#597487) Journal

      The DJI multirotors you can get from Wal-Mart or Target are being used to drop grenades and AP mortar shells.

      DJI drones have the payload of a pack of cigarettes.
      You've never actually held any live munition in your life have you,

      "forward leaning" sounds like a phrase you might have come up with.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1) by ElizabethGreene on Friday November 17 2017, @11:28PM

        by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 17 2017, @11:28PM (#598457) Journal

        The DJI Phantom 4 has a short range payload capacity of 500 grams, 600 grams if you don't mind the motors getting very very hot. This is sufficient payload for an M67 grenade and a second battery for range.

        They aren't dropping those though, this source identifies them as pg-7 heads, but they all aren't like this.
        http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/01/drones-isis/134542/ [defenseone.com]

        For some, it looks like they are using stripped grenade launcher cartridges.
        https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1498777854 [liveleak.com]

        I've counted at least four different munition types on the aircraft. Their highlight reel shows three, the sticks, the pg-7s, and the yellow-tipped round ones.
        https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a96_1499525712 [liveleak.com]

        In another video they bomb a barge carrying vehicles across a river. That one used a stick-and ball munition of unknown origin. (video has been taken down.) I think they were experimenting to find something easily manufactured with a more predictable flight path than the grenade with plastic bag streamer.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bobs on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:54PM (9 children)

    by Bobs (1462) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @05:54PM (#597385)

    Given the incredibly massive number of completely open, easy targets in the US that a low grade moron could hit at will, the only reason there aren't more terrorist attacks is because they aren't trying.

    US has wasted far more billions on security theatre than the terrorists have done in damage to the US.

    It is a tragedy when people die and are injured. It has happened and will happen again and we need to be vigilant to minimize the risk.

    But we can't eliminate risk. And I would rather embrace an open society that live in fear. As we can't stop everything we will be better of if we focus and prioritize what we protect against.

    How about instead of billions of shoes being removed we replace all the openly hackable electronic voting systems? Or scan every incoming cargo for NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) threats?

    A fool with a car can easily kill more people than a drone with grenade.

    P.S. In the US civilians can buy a grenade launcher:
    http://www.gunbroker.com/item/701561961 [gunbroker.com]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M203_grenade_launcher#Civilian_ownership_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 15 2017, @06:56PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 15 2017, @06:56PM (#597408) Journal

      Given the incredibly massive number of completely open, easy targets in the US that a low grade moron could hit at will, the only reason there aren't more terrorist attacks is because they aren't trying.

      The FBI is trying harder than the terrorists are.

      • (Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday November 15 2017, @09:47PM (1 child)

        by Bobs (1462) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @09:47PM (#597476)

        No, the issue is by are large the "terrorists" aren't trying.

        If they were buses, malls, busy roads, stadiums, theaters, etc would all have been targeted and hit multiple times because it is effectively impossible to prevent these attacks.

        Look at the past six months.

         

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:34PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:34PM (#597845) Journal

          The FBI is trying harder than the terrorists are.

          No, the issue is by are large the "terrorists" aren't trying.

          The way I read that was that the FBI are trying harder than the terrorists *to blow things up*. A huge number of foiled terror plots are planned, supplied, or financed by the FBI themselves. While the number of terrorist attacks you read about is quite low, the number of real threats are significantly less.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by AssCork on Wednesday November 15 2017, @07:21PM (5 children)

      by AssCork (6255) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @07:21PM (#597416) Journal

      P.S. In the US civilians can buy a grenade launcher:

      Yes, any U.S. civilian that can;

      • live in a state that does not prohibit NFA items (specifically "Destructive Devices")
      • locate an honest civilian seller
      • put several thousand dollars in escrow
      • File the NFA paperwork, which includes fingerprints, background check, and a signed letter from your Chief Law Enforcement Officer
      • pay the $200 tax
      • Wait the estimated eight to 24 months for the paperwork to clear
      • Wait another month or two for them to mail it back to you, along with that shiny lil stamp.
      • arrange shipment of the item from the seller, and release a percentage of the escrow'd $$$$
      • finally acquire item, now have to carry the completed NFA form (with stamp and signature) anywhere you go
      • not be able to cross state lines with the item legally unless you file another form

      Oh, would you like some 40mm grenades with that?
      Repeat the above process, for each one.

      Oh, you used one?
      Submit the paperwork to notify the NFA, BATFE, and Chief CLEO in your county of the destruction of a "Destructive Device".

      --
      Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
      • (Score: 2) by Bobs on Wednesday November 15 2017, @09:41PM (4 children)

        by Bobs (1462) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @09:41PM (#597472)

        FYI: Heard about one guy with a licensed grenade launcher who has an arrangement with the local sheriff:

        He also has a license for a single grenade. Each time he shoots it off he just takes the "empty" in the the sheriff to swap out for a/the replacement, so that he doesn't have wait months for the reload. Easy on everybody.

        Rinse and repeat.

        ----
        Two more thoughts:
        - If anybody with a couple of thousand $ and can pass a background check can buy grenades and a launcher, how much worse is: Drones!?

        - Several of the recent mass shootings were kids taking adult's weapons, with no background check required. If it is on the street someone will likely eventually be using it.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 15 2017, @10:48PM (1 child)

          by frojack (1554) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @10:48PM (#597498) Journal

          how much worse is: Drones!?

          A lot less worse.

          Your average COTS drone can't lift a live grenade. The guy trying to get a grenade airborne with a drone is the only one at risk.
          Maybe when people can get their mitts on used Amazon watermelon delivery drones we will have to worry.

          On the other hand you can buy a use beat up white van and drive that sucker anywhere you want - with or without payload, and hurt a lot of people.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by AssCork on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:20PM

            by AssCork (6255) on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:20PM (#597837) Journal

            Why buy when you can rent? [homedepot.com]

            --
            Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
        • (Score: 2) by AssCork on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:19PM (1 child)

          by AssCork (6255) on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:19PM (#597834) Journal

          Each time he shoots it off he just takes the "empty" in the the sheriff to swap out for a/the replacement, so that he doesn't have wait months for the reload. Easy on everybody.
          Rinse and repeat.

          Sounds like a violation of ATF Ruling 2016-5 [atf.gov] (PDF warning) regarding the Serial Number requirements on all NFA items. Specifically "Destructive Devices" that are all legally defined as 'firearms' in regards to requirements.
          In the case of 40mm grenades, a serial number was likely printed (rather than etched) onto the shell casing.

          Getting a 'refill from the Sheriff' would be unlikely, unless everyone involved was comfortable with the possibility of 10 years in a federal prison (unless someone had an entire case of the things, all with the exact same serial etched on them).

          --
          Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
          • (Score: 2) by Bobs on Thursday November 16 2017, @09:14PM

            by Bobs (1462) on Thursday November 16 2017, @09:14PM (#597904)

            I may have told it wrong or misunderstood it.

            Think it just simplifies the paperwork: he has permit to own 1 grenade. I believe the paperwork to replace a round that has been fired is less than that to own a "second" round and he has some arrangement that simplifies reloading/replacing his one grenade after it has been fired.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by RamiK on Wednesday November 15 2017, @06:00PM (3 children)

    by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday November 15 2017, @06:00PM (#597389)

    As I've mentioned a couple of month ago in passing [soylentnews.org], there are open hardware and software drones like the AWuAV 3015E that are threatening to disrupt the UAV/drone market very soon. So it's no surprise that, following your typical military-industrial American/UK and Israeli complex patterns, we're witnessing the following taking place concurrently:

    1. Homeland security releases a weaponized drones bulletin: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=22576 [soylentnews.org]

    2. Laws are being lobbied before the US congress: http://insideunmannedsystems.com/congress-poised-reinstate-drone-registration/ [insideunmannedsystems.com]

    3. A report has been presented to the Israeli Knesset suggesting the need for regulations: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Special-Report-Israel-unprepared-for-terror-domestic-drone-threats-514324 [jpost.com]

    4. The Commercial UAV Show is taking place in Britain where talks by industry heads are lamenting the current lack of pilot licensing and manufacturers' regulations: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-online/drone-regulation-concerns-cast-shadow-over-industr/ [shephardmedia.com]

    One interesting thing is that this is actually part of a prolonged corporate struggle over the future of autonomous vehicles and drones spear-headed by Google against the military-industrial complex as well as the automotive industry: From releasing their AI code open-source to demilitarizing Boston Dynamics before selling them off to Softbank, Google has long since decided to fight manufacturing and licensing, IP and regulations by making sure the technology ends up in the open market even if it means losing money on specific purchases. After all, they're not interested in securing their monopoly on the hardware sales. They want your data.

    As for the people... Well, we stand to lose either way in everything from privacy and tax dollars, to jobs. Bet hey, at least when you'll be spending your meager basic income to order food from Amazon, you'd get it via drone within hours. That's quality of life right there. Right?

    --
    compiling...
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 15 2017, @08:20PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 15 2017, @08:20PM (#597439) Journal

      One interesting thing is that this is actually part of a prolonged corporate struggle over the future of autonomous vehicles and drones spear-headed by Google against the military-industrial complex as well as the automotive industry: From releasing their AI code open-source to demilitarizing Boston Dynamics before selling them off to Softbank, Google has long since decided to fight manufacturing and licensing, IP and regulations by making sure the technology ends up in the open market even if it means losing money on specific purchases. After all, they're not interested in securing their monopoly on the hardware sales. They want your data.

      As for the people... Well, we stand to lose either way in everything from privacy and tax dollars, to jobs. Bet hey, at least when you'll be spending your meager basic income to order food from Amazon, you'd get it via drone within hours. That's quality of life right there. Right?

      Well of course concentration of power is the real problem here. But you also outline the key weakness of these businesses, conflicting interests. So rather than lose all these rights, let's just not do that, right?

      A key element of any democratic society is division of power between numerous parties. This would be another example of that. We need capable businesses to balance the power of government. The thing I've noticed about those who complain about the power of businesses is that they are the most eager to create the harsh regulatory/litigation environment that creates large business concentrations (there are large economies of scale in dealing with that environment). There's a lot of self-defeating belief systems out there, but this is one of the worst.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Thursday November 16 2017, @12:17AM (1 child)

        by RamiK (1813) on Thursday November 16 2017, @12:17AM (#597515)

        harsh regulatory/litigation environment that creates large business concentrations

        It's the concentration of natural resources and technology that dictate how large businesses grow through the principle of economy of scale. The regulations are the by-product of the resulting power balance and ownership structures. Throw in some game theory and you'll find that when one players decides against doing the most efficient thing, the other players gobble them up. This can be either taking slaves instead of genocide early on. Or it could be releasing slaves when technology and mercantilism progresses enough.

        There's no moral laws to it. No "harsh"ness. Just technology and resource struggles that soon to follow.

        Sometimes the technology improves the quality of life. Sometimes it hurts it. Sometimes it's for everyone. Sometimes it limited to a small number of people.

        Again, the best you can do is keep mobile and ride the wave out. If you have enough resources spread around enough people since you can't have it all managed by a few, then you end up with a democracy and what you call a "free market". If you have one or two rivers, and one or two mines, then you're going to end up with a couple of families owning everything and eventually fighting each-other over it all.

        You call this self-defeating. But I feel denying the reality of things is far worse since it leaves us unprepared to face what's to come. Both sides call it fake news. Both are spreading it. But it's the many who get hurt the most. Maybe if more people were "self-defeated" and stopped buying plastic crap to feed these mega-corps, the power-at-be would be force to interfere or face their own demise. While bread, wine and games kept Rome busy for many centuries, America is dealing with international corporations slowly buying everything.

        It's the barbarians at the gate. And we're all ignoring it since it's self defeating to deal with the economy as it really is.

        --
        compiling...
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 16 2017, @05:01AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 16 2017, @05:01AM (#597585) Journal

          It's the concentration of natural resources and technology that dictate how large businesses grow through the principle of economy of scale.

          Neither is particularly concentrated. Hobby-size projects aren't going to be competitive for the most part, but big companies have to worry about bureaucratic inefficiencies and conflicts of interest more than the small company.

          The regulations are the by-product of the resulting power balance and ownership structures.

          That is, dominance by government combined with a mentality that sees regulation as the solution to most problems.

          Again, the best you can do is keep mobile and ride the wave out. If you have enough resources spread around enough people since you can't have it all managed by a few, then you end up with a democracy and what you call a "free market". If you have one or two rivers, and one or two mines, then you're going to end up with a couple of families owning everything and eventually fighting each-other over it all.

          There are vastly more than one or two rivers and one or two mines.

          You call this self-defeating. But I feel denying the reality of things is far worse since it leaves us unprepared to face what's to come.

          I consider them the same thing. As Sun Tzu wrote:

          If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

(1)