Hacker News Reader

Comment by ehsankia | Hacker News Reader

Cheap? Just wait until they make an example out of those two. It definitely won't be a cheap event for them.

Perhaps for these two it won't be so cheap, but they just PoC'd a drone DOS rather effectively.

For example, if the control system can be adapted to be driven very remotely (think US military drones -- operator sits in an office building in the US, drone is flying around the middle east) then there's no reason this couldn't be perpetrated by someone very far away, potentially outside of the jurisdiction of the country they're unleashing their drones on. They could go and set up the base stations months in advance of an attack in relatively remote areas, as little drone sleeper cells. When the attack happens, the perpetrators are far away, and much harder to stop.

I expect we'll see more of these, but I hope that this attack made it very clear that there needs to be more effective ways to track and disable rogue drones. I do wonder how they finally found these two (and if they are even the actual perpetrators) but I think they're gonna want to keep those cards close to their chest.

I'm kinda surprised that after three days of disruption, the British authorities still haven't found a way to shoot down the drones. It was just a DoS this time, but there could very well be an explosive payload the next time. Drones could enter secure facilities, take pictures, infiltrate or exfiltrate various objects, and even press buttons using 3D-printed appendages. Criminals of the future won't even need to be on the same continent to get past physical security.

Heard on the news that they did not want to shoot it down to avoid collateral damage from bullets falling around.

The UK is much more gun-averse than anywhere else I’ve been. Even the police are not routinely armed with only a few exceptions (airports being one, but the point is about the attitude).

I think over the course of three days, they could have someone drive down to the station and pick up the guns.

As pointed out by others, there's concern about the bullets causing FOD, or potentially hitting people.

Shotgun shot has none of those issues. Has no one on HN been around firearms?

Someone above suggested the drones were at 10,000 ft. That is way out of shotgun effective range.

Possibly did not want the risk of littering bullets on the runway as well; it’s actually impressive the amount of effort that goes into keeping a runway free of small metal objects: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage

That's a good point. We haven't actually seen what a full response from the authorities would be. I would imagine if there was actual imminent danger they would not hesitate to begin shooting down the drones and using more disruptive countermeasures.

I actually kinda wonder if you can train any birds of prey to go after drones. Airports already use some so keep birds away from runways, but that's still mostly the birds doing what birds do.

This has already been shown to be possible. Example from the Netherlands police:

https://youtu.be/b5DEg2qZzkU

In the meantime it's been found to be impractical https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/12/16767000/police-netherla...

Seems dangerous for the birds.

Maybe attack drones that can shoot string - since practically every drone uses rotors.

Dragging a net has been tried:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/01/21/tokyo-poli...

Unless the drone is really large, you don't need to shoot actual bullets at it. Strings, fishing nets, plastic bags, water cannons, or anything else that can mess up the propellers for a few seconds would be enough to crash them.

ISIS has been using drones a lot, for filming propaganda, reconnaissance, dropping grenades, and even drone suicide bombing.

I think this future is already here, it's just you only see them used in-theater because ISIS has terrible force projection ability and don't have any way of getting their drones and weapons into Europe to commit attacks there.

Right before Christmas... oh boy. I bet the terrorism charges will be thrown at those two. Anyone can come up with similar case from the recent past ?

Law was passed sometime ago - it's up to five years in prison:

https://www.techradar.com/news/new-uk-drone-laws-come-into-f...

Just 5 years?

I suppose it’s good from a rehabilitation perspective but it’s kind of weak as a deterrent - where 10 years might be more appropriate.

Why even five years?

Let the airport,airlines and insurera sue any culprits for losses. Why should I pay for their incarceration? No harm was done to persons or property.

in an ideal world, all non-physical harm would be handled this way. unfortunately, such attackers can cause multi-million dollar (or pound, in this case) losses in a short period of time and probably have minimal assets. you might get a few grand out of them if you're lucky.

It's called indentured servitude [1] and it's still practiced in the US [2], but only to benefit the state and its cronies.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude_in_the_Am...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-...

If five years won’t deter you I doubt ten would.

The perception of 5 or 10 years as a deterrent doesn't make a difference to the average person.

Citation needed.

A decade in prison is twice 5 years. That’s a lot of time to waste.

Edit: Guess downvotes are abused here too ...

Edit2: Would be interesting to see how low this post will go. Guess some people don’t like their abusing of the moderation system called out.

Citation needed that longer sentences work as a deterrent.

The reason you don't steal from your coworkers has little to do with the sentence that would be imposed and a lot to do with your personal values: you know theft is wrong.

Edit: talking about downvoyes will always attract downvotes. HN's voting culture may not even what you're used to. People can down item for any, or for no, reason. A few people can down vote, but most people with an account can upvote. Corrective upvote will often be provided - there are people on HN who look for unfairly downvoted posts to supply corrective upvote.

If your post is downvoted and remains downvoted it means that someone downvoted it, and no-one else who read it thought it deserved different.

Phrases like [citation needed] are often going to get downvoted. Downvotes are likely because you're claiming prison is a deterrent and that longer sentences are a stronger deterrent with nothing to support that claim, while asking someone else to support their claim that longer sentences aren't a deterrent.

Actually the only psychological profile that wouldn't be deterred by 10 vs 5 years would be the psychopath (who is largely immune to punishment, and often regards it with complete serenity). An "average person" would make tremendous sacrifices to get 5 instead of 10. Plea bargain justice makes this clear.

A plea bargain is after the event though. If you have been caught and are likely to be convicted then 5 years sounds a lot better than 10. That has nothing at all to do with deterrent effects.

The thing is, an 'average person' has no real idea or mental model of what five years in prison actually entails. They haven't been locked up ever, even for shorter stretches, and most likely neither have their friends. Basically they know its bad, but with no frame of reference it gets left at that and filed away as irrelevant anyway since prison happens to other, bad people. So there's no way to make a risk calculation about e.g 6mo vs 5y sentences, they are both just vague bad things. Monetary fines work because people understand money and what losing a sum of money means because they deal with money all the time. I assume corporal punishment works too, since everyone has experience with pain?

I'm sure they can find lots more to charge these two with. I fully expect they'll be put away for a very long time.

I suspect they won't get a prison sentence, or if they do it'll be months not years.

15 activists were just convicted under the 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act for obstructing a deportation flight:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stansted-15-depo...

The 1990 Aviation and Maritime Security Act says:

"It is also... an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon unlawfully and intentionally to disrupt the services of such an aerodrome in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome." and provides that "A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com