Comment by gregmac | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gregmac | Hacker News Reader

Wow, this is an elected official?

> Transport minister Robert Goodwill admitted authorities had not yet confirmed whether what struck the Airbus A320

> Mr Goodwill also dismissed calls for tighter rules on drone use to protect against terror threats insisting current rules governing drone use were strong enough. He said it would be much easier for terrorists to attack airports on the ground with rucksacks or car bombs than orchestrate the attack from a drone aircraft.

> He warned that any moves to enforce geo-fencing rules would be vulnerable to being hacked by "somebody who could get round that software".

> "And indeed the early reports of a dent in the front of the plane were not confirmed - there was no actual damage to the plane"

> "the pilot has a lot of other things to concentrate [while landing] on so we're not quite sure what they saw so I think we should maybe not overreact too much."

This is a sane, rational response.. I am just not used to hearing it come from government officials. This should be a model for the type of responses that government officials have to these types of situations.

> He warned that any moves to enforce geo-fencing rules would be vulnerable to being hacked by "somebody who could get round that software".

Indeed very impressive that an elected official understands this.

Someone with a little reverse engineering talent can patch something like that without much work for near-free (think bypassing those FCC regulations turning up TX power in your router firmware). Someone with a little regular engineering talent can spoof or jam GPS for relatively cheap.

Not to mention there is free flight controller software with autonomous capabilites, e.g. APM.

Realistically speaking, what it means is that this particular minister somehow managed to employ a "technical expert" who actually is just that. Oh, and that this technical expert is both a) competent, and b) has managed to gain the trust of the minister. The combination is probably easier said than done, so props to whoever that person is :).

I don't really care whether my `competent politician' is actually a single human, or a bunch of people working together.

(Just like people usually attribute speeches to a mythical, composite `Obama' person, even though the roles of performer and speechwriter are done by different people.)

Effectively delegating tasks is a skill and I know it’s a skill because I suck at it.

I think the geofencing has the same value as a door lock; it keeps the honest people honest.

So we'll only really have to worry about dishonest terrorists and or plastic bags

Right, as opposed to also worrying about a careless teenager flying their drone too close to an airport to get a sick camera angle of a landing plane.

Why worry about something that hasn't happened? Why not worry about a careless teenager wanting to get a sick Camera angle of the inside of your fridge? It's as valid a concern.

But people flying drones over airports has happened: https://youtu.be/QGMDQ-vaV9Y

Normally I would agree with you, I often chide people for inventing problems to solve. But it is a little different when it isn't a hypothetical as much as an inevitable future occurrence.

As for refrigerators, I am just as worried about people trying to fly drones around my house as I am about people flying drones around planes, yes. I have it on good authority that anyone with the funds can purchase access to 3D drone-generated map of my city, my house included. A gentleman here in town who replaces windows doesn't bother to measure them anymore; he just uses the drone photos.

https://www.google.com/maps/streetview/

Now imagine that without Google Privacy, better cameras, and shot from the air.

That's a public website, no Google privacy is relevant.

Google Privacy is the program which blurs (things that looks like) faces and license plates.

We will always have to worry about intelligent, motivated people who wish to do us harm. Isn't that enough to worry about without being vulnerable to careless people, behaving unintelligently, who put lives at risk through their ignorance? Keep in mind, the latter group is much bigger.

Or a linter. It helps to stop you inadvertently doing something stupid.

or you could just build a drone without GPS.

Geofencing only works if people stick to the rules. Criminals normaly don't.

I use multimotors, and think the current hysteria about drones is deplorable, and that this minister's response (and indeed the whole article) is great.

That said, geofencing is not to protect planes from terrorists, it's to protect them from stupid.

Yeah, the hysterical response has come from the public this time. I fly drones, perfectly legally, and this week have had people variously tell me that I'm either a terrorist or I'm "helping the terrorists" or I'm am idiot or "Isn't that dangerous for my children" - even stood in a field, people wander >100m over from the canal towpath to complain at me. Popular opinion in the pub is that they're dangerous and should be banned, didn't you hear 5000 people almost died on Monday when ten drones crashed into twelve aircraft, all almost certainly carrying nuclear weapons that failed to go off because gchq saved us?

a few years ago the response was positive and interested, almost universally - even though I was at that point flying in town due to lack of regulation.

Media has trained them to be scared of drones, like everything else.

are they even drones? RC quadcopters. Thats what people are afraid of RC copters.

Nonetheless, the amount of hype in the original news clearly show the state of paranoia the contemporary society is in.

No, that shows the state of paranoia that the original news wants to convey to sell more media.

The media is part of contemporary society. As are the police who originally tweeted the drone hitting plane angle, the media for reporting on it, and the consumers who love a good fear-ridden headline.

The culture of fear is a widespread human fallibility, not an evil corporate invention.

The fact rationality, and how to perceive the world without tripping over our human biases/fallacies, is not taught with any priority in society is the real issue. That is the root cause of the anti-intellectualism that's so widespread IMO. No-one in the chain approached the topic with any level of skepticism. Just retweeting and reblogging a story without any solid evidence, giving it more and more credibility.

Propaganda aside, geofencing isn't about stopping a sophisticated group from launching an attack. Its about making sure all my friends around here keep their DJI Phantoms away from SFO arrivals and departures..

They've also tried a 747 simulator. This is quite impressive.

This is the kind of guy you need for president.

He's interested in transport, so he's the kind of guy who is useful as a transport minister. Otherwise he mostly just votes with the whips and doesn't seem to have much focus on anything. I'm not sure that's really who you want for president

Reply on news.ycombinator.com