Hacker News Reader

Comment by guscost | Hacker News Reader

Not to get all libertarian, but this reminds me of the gun control debate. What this person seems to be most worried about (a drone attack) would necessarily be the work of a criminal. But what this person seems to be endorsing (a law restricting civilian drone use) would mostly limit the freedom of those who follow the law. It's very silly and a bit disappointing.

View on HN

a law restricting civilian drone use

Was this submission originally linked to something else? The submission talks about jamming and techniques to shoot down drones. I coincidentally mentioned on here yesterday the business opportunities around anti-drone technology-

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8998369

None of this has anything to do with banning drones. Several comments thus far have fearmongered a worry that the article doesn't even remotely claim.

EDIT: While I know that commenting on moderation is verboten, and seldom beneficial, the moderation in this discussion are embarrassing. Fear-mongering hysterics of the actual worst kind, incapable of discussing actual changes without rhetoric and propaganda. Though now I see this was flagged to the fourth page, unseen by normal rational people.

A restriction does not necessarily mean a ban. From the article:

> For the recreational pilot who loses control of his machine, better firmware can keep it from hovering over prohibited areas like the White House.

Now of course it's hard to argue that a special blacklist for programmable GPS does not make some sense. But this kind of agenda always starts out at the fringes. What I'm saying is that even the mild rhetoric at this stage is troubling, because I have a pretty good idea where it's headed.

It is not a sensible idea.

First of, people will be able to go around your DRM by patching the firmware, or spoofing the data coming from the GPS.

Second, your proposal would require the GPS to be always on. Not every drone needs a GPS, and not every drone needs the battery drain of using a GPS all the time.

But it would prevent some frat guys from doing something stupid. Of course hard-core criminals and the mafia will always have access to dangerous things, but that doesn't mean restricting access for the small-timers and the stupid/drunk is not worthwhile.

You can't always win, but you can win 95% of the time.

Stupid frat guys aren't going to fly explosive laden drones over restricted areas. However, everyone will have to pay the cost of this stupid DRM as it slows down operations and sucks battery. Worse, if it's made mandatory, it might stifle open source hardware.

The blind urge to control and regulate is one of the most destructive force in the economy.

OK, I'd guess that the blacklist would only apply when said drone is operating in GPS navigation mode. Of course this does nothing to prevent manual operation in restricted airspace, but that has always been the case with RC aircraft.

The author was clearly discussing the recent events regarding the drone that went over the White House. For normal buyers of drones, and for drone companies, such "blacklists" make sense because it protects the drone operator. Right now if you fly your drone over the White House, an airport, and so on, you -- the operator -- are taking significant legal risks. DJI and other companies know that their average user doesn't want that, hence the "blacklist". But it (flying in restricted areas) remains against the law, and a serious risk, whether your drone complies with it or not. The author of the piece seemed to talk about that from a "normal device" perspective.

But of course everyone knows that such a list would do nothing against a real criminal who would override such functionality. It isn't really clever for anyone to point that out, and it's reacting in advance to a non-law or regulation, but hysterically responding to a company trying to ensure that their customers don't accidentally get in trouble with the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com