Criminals and terrorists can fly drones too
February 6, 2013
A scale model of a U.S. Navy F-86 Sabre fighter plane, similar to a device constructed by Massachusetts resident Rezwan Ferdaus, 26, who was accused of plotting attacks on the U.S. Pentagon and Capitol by using a remote-controlled aircraft filled with plastic explosives. The pictured aircraft, from a photo released by the U.S. Justice Department, is not the device constructed by the defendant. (Credit: U.S. Justice Department)
Drones are no longer the sole domain of the military, and just as with many new technologies, they can easily fall into the wrong hands, global security advisor, writer and consultant Marc Goodman reports in Time.
Criminal organizations are early adopters of technology, and some have already used UAVs and other forms of robotics to violate the law while reducing their risk of arrest and apprehension.
(More)
Comments (29)
by Bri
I seem to remember that bee brain research and everyone wasthinking how good it would be as a killer be. This issue is the Sam for all of the promise and peril technologies. The issue is morals and ethics. Humanbeings need to get their act together, otherwise your just giving VIKKI a good reason to write us off. I hear Elvis Costrllo in the background again( what’s so funny bout peace love and understanding). Strange game the only winning move is not to play. I hope we muster the initiative to think and discuss morals, but I’m not holding my breath. I like my thoughts on this matter. Sorry that I can’t talk about it. Nobody seems to want to explore what to me seems obvious. Just think of me as that druggie New Age guy with all that wishful thinking. I’ll say one thing,,,,, I bet I’m right.
by Locke
From the article:
“The tool itself is thus not the problem; it is its use and application. Instead of banning fire — or, in this case, drones — we should proactively anticipate its misuse and defend against its dangers to preserve the forthcoming benefits.”
I guess the reasoning that the object is to blame only applies to firearms in today’s society. Political affiliation is such a fickle mistress.
by David
the line between “criminal” and “good guy” is very blurry. the president can assasinate us citizens in secret, without a trial or justification. a memo “prepared by the Obama Department of Justice that effectively justifies the president’s power to target even Americans for assassination without due process.
by David
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
by Khannea Suntzu
Yah well I do recall bringing this up a few years ago.
http://blog.khanneasuntzu.com/?p=3297
by Boristabby
Wow. How neat. The bad guys and the good guys doing dog-fighting overhead.
It is like a remake of Dawn Patrol.
Who will emerge as the Red Baron?
Maybe Snoopy will prevail this time?
by Mr.X
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a drone is a good guy with a drone.”
by Khannea Suntzu
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a highly addictive mind alteration nanoid infector swarm is a good guy working for the DHS controlling a fine granular full coverage homeland defense mind resilience & reprogramming nanonet to protect citizens from teh terrists.
by Ken
Suntzu,
this is MGM and NSA. We both like your thinking.
by Khannea Suntzu
Make me an offer.
by Walter Baltzley
The solution that will be proposed by government will be an all-pervasive surveillance network to monitor our every move…for our own protection of course.
by Robert H. Pike
It seems to me that after watching movies like “Contagion” and “Outbreak” that terrorists real threat is in the realm of biomedical terrorism. Watching the news about boat-loads of people getting sick from just contaminated food makes me think twice about cruises….and in “Contagion” they talked about a terrorist simply walking through a crowded casino knowing (s)he had a very contagious, high mortality disease. Drones don’t scare me; diseases do.
by Gorden Russell
You’re right, Pike. Biological terrorism will be a much greater problem than a model airplane with a few ounces of homemade explosive…but don’t disregard the little planes either. They could still fly in and explode against a tank of gas at a refinery. A small bomb can still do a great harm.
by Khannea Suntzu
Diseases scare me, rogue government laboratories that churn out dozens of disease strains with narrow objectives (“this stuff decreases the functional IQ of 97% of Palestinians by an average of 20 points”) scare me a lot more.
by ErikSMeyer
They used a remote controlled car to do this in The Dead Pool (1988); it wasn’t particularly shocking, because the idea is obvious. I’m sure this guy was some goofball who probably got his “plastic explosives” from an FBI agent, but even so, putting explosives on a remote controlled car of airplane is not exactly something out of Neuromancer. Of course, the planes and cars are better now, but it’s the same idea.
by Khannea Suntzu
The war against drug is dead. Soon clients will order drugs online, paying with bit coin and a 10$ rice board printed drone will make the deliveries.
Let me correct myself – ATF will lobby for a radical increase of budget. “we can ill afford a drone delivery system gap!!”
by Mike
Doesn’t the term “drone” imply some sort of autonomy?
by Khannea Suntzu
No its a marketing slogan.
by David
Easy to do. I used to build and fly model airplanes, so know all too well how they could be used.
by Rob
We had these for years and they were called RC planes. Fun to build, fun to fly and to repair. Now they are “drones”. Why?
by Andy
It’s the difference between hobby and killing people. Not sure if there’s a difference when it comes to the U.S. government.
by Gorden Russell
That’s a great question, Rob. There was a time when unpiloted aircraft were just used as target drones, and I guess the name just stuck. But it really is a misnomer today. In a bee hive, the drones do no work and have no stingers to protect the colony. They are only there to mate with a new princess and then they are driven off to die.
Now the aircraft that are still called drones are real workhorses that carry a big sting. They should be called worker bees, or even killer bees.
by Khannea Suntzu
Cheap, easily replaced saturation of things to do as you want them to do.
Aha. Force projection supremacy allowing the investor with the deepest pockets maximum manifestation of his deepest, most dark ego desires. Imagine Donald Trump spending a few billion on millions and millions of 100E drones, no single drone completely identical to the next one, all “point & click” manifestations of his psychosexual edifice complex, swarming his massive ivory towers as cybertrump sperm cells.
by Bri
Are you inferring that his shlock of hair is an example of penis extention?
by Khannea Suntzu
Ok thanks for that mental image.
by Khannea Suntzu
Well actually, (onion) http://blog.khanneasuntzu.com/?p=3719
by Gorden Russell
Can you see a penis sticking right out of Trump’s forehead? Well, he is such a dickhead.
by MatthewQ
Online etymology site says the use of drone for unmanned aircraft comes from circa 1946. It’s probably always been a military term since then but has only recently been added to the public vernacular. That’s my assumption. The military has its own specific names for many items that are sometimes different than what the general public commonly calls something.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=drone
by Gorden Russell
Hey Matthew, look at this, from the Wikipedia entry for the de Havilland Tiger Moth:
“A radio-controlled gunnery target version of Tiger Moth appeared in 1935 called the DH.82 Queen Bee; it used a wooden fuselage based on that of the DH.60 Gipsy Moth (with appropriate structural changes related to cabane strut placement) with the wings of the Tiger Moth II.[7] There were nearly 300 in service at the start of the Second World War. It is believed the name “Drone” derived from “Queen Bee”. These aircraft retained a normal front cockpit for test-flying or ferry flights, but had a radio-control system in the rear cockpit that operated the controls using pneumatically driven servos. Four-hundred were built by de Havilland at Hatfield, and a further 70 by Scottish Aviation.[8]“