The irony is that the civilian drone market exploded (no pun intended) because of cheap innovation, and now the same qualities (small, cheap, adaptable) make them nearly impossible to regulate without sweeping bans.
I suspect that an increasing number of countries and cities will move toward permanent drone bans, as battlefield technology inevitably filters down to organized crime—and eventually even petty crime.
Governments probably wouldn't care about hobbyists, but they would care about all the commercial enterprises that already adopted drones. Delivery drones and light shows are the most well-known, but they're also used in weather monitoring and agriculture.
Maybe this is the time for drone transponder signals? Require every drone handler to be registered, then have the drone broadcast some signal with the registration ID + some cryptographic hash?
Then shoot down everything that has no transponder or a blacklisted ID.
Yes, this will encourage ID theft (or just theft of the entire drone), but even then, a stolen ID could at least be a starting point for an investigation.
There's really no point to doing that. The drones which actually get used for attacks in places like Ukraine are not fancy off-the-shelf drones. They're very simple DIY systems made from basic electronic components. So, impossible to regulate.
I'm not the original downvoter, but since you asked, I downvoted you for asking about fake internet points in the first place. You'll be happier if you don't sweat the small stuff.
I asked a question as I thought I may have missed an important point. Having a (legitimate) and factual comment downvoted with no explanation why isn't helpful.
> You'll be happier if you don't sweat the small stuff
I don't give a shite about imaginary internet points. I do care about the accuracy of my comments.
Because there isn't much point in being able to legally possess something you can't use.
Edit: The comment I am responding to initially had some sort of "who cares" type question (the exact wording escapes me) in it to which I responded. It has since been edited making me look like I am answering a different a question about votes and responded to as if that is the case. I have left my initial response above this unedited.
A temporary ban on use [1] does not equate to no point in legal ownership!
[1] A temporary ban that isn't unreasonable given the circumstances; namely current Russian drone intrusions on Danish airports and national infrastructure. There *is* a war on you know!
> The comment I am responding to initially had some sort of "who cares" type question
It most certainly did not!
My only edit is clearly identified and is asking why a comment I believed to be correct was downvoted. I want to know if I've made factual mistake so I can be corrected (no, I don't give a toss about imaginary internet points).
The irony is that the civilian drone market exploded (no pun intended) because of cheap innovation, and now the same qualities (small, cheap, adaptable) make them nearly impossible to regulate without sweeping bans.
I suspect that an increasing number of countries and cities will move toward permanent drone bans, as battlefield technology inevitably filters down to organized crime—and eventually even petty crime.
Governments probably wouldn't care about hobbyists, but they would care about all the commercial enterprises that already adopted drones. Delivery drones and light shows are the most well-known, but they're also used in weather monitoring and agriculture.
Maybe this is the time for drone transponder signals? Require every drone handler to be registered, then have the drone broadcast some signal with the registration ID + some cryptographic hash?
Then shoot down everything that has no transponder or a blacklisted ID.
Yes, this will encourage ID theft (or just theft of the entire drone), but even then, a stolen ID could at least be a starting point for an investigation.
I wonder how long before Ukraine or Russia allows delivery drones.
After the deaths of most of the veterans who were traumatized by drones?
There's really no point to doing that. The drones which actually get used for attacks in places like Ukraine are not fancy off-the-shelf drones. They're very simple DIY systems made from basic electronic components. So, impossible to regulate.
Yeah, was surprised to learn that the "military grade" drones are actually simpler than the commercial/hobbyist ones, e.g. no GPS.
Of course it makes sense if you see them as "disposable material".
Also GNSS is probably not all that useful anywhere near the front, widely jammed.
A benefit is, I think, that that immediately makes any drone in the sky fair game. Makes for faster decisions when in doubt.
Headline is incorrect.
Civilian drone *flights* are temporarily banned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c708dzqvz1vo
EDIT: Why the downvote?
I'm not the original downvoter, but since you asked, I downvoted you for asking about fake internet points in the first place. You'll be happier if you don't sweat the small stuff.
I asked a question as I thought I may have missed an important point. Having a (legitimate) and factual comment downvoted with no explanation why isn't helpful.
> You'll be happier if you don't sweat the small stuff
I don't give a shite about imaginary internet points. I do care about the accuracy of my comments.
Because there isn't much point in being able to legally possess something you can't use.
Edit: The comment I am responding to initially had some sort of "who cares" type question (the exact wording escapes me) in it to which I responded. It has since been edited making me look like I am answering a different a question about votes and responded to as if that is the case. I have left my initial response above this unedited.
Bizarre response.
A temporary ban on use [1] does not equate to no point in legal ownership!
[1] A temporary ban that isn't unreasonable given the circumstances; namely current Russian drone intrusions on Danish airports and national infrastructure. There *is* a war on you know!
It's possible that this could turn into something permanent, but the current ban is only through Friday. Saturday, you'll be able to use it again.
> The comment I am responding to initially had some sort of "who cares" type question
It most certainly did not!
My only edit is clearly identified and is asking why a comment I believed to be correct was downvoted. I want to know if I've made factual mistake so I can be corrected (no, I don't give a toss about imaginary internet points).
However, it does appear my post is correct.
The road near my house is closed for roadworks for a weekend -> THE TYRANTS HAVE BANNED CARS.
I mean, if this was a permanent ban, sure, but it's temporary. Temporary restrictions on airspace happen all the time for all sorts of reasons.
https://m.xkcd.com/1523/
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45406256
[flagged]