Slashdot Mirror
White House Drone Incident Exposes Key Security Gap
HughPickens.com writes The Washington Post reports that the intrusion by a recreational drone onto the White House lawn has exposed a security gap at the compound that the Secret Service has spent years studying but has so far been unable to fix. Commercial technology is available that can use a combination of sensitive radar and acoustic trackers to detect small drones, though coming up with an effective way to stop them has been more elusive. "To do something about the problem, you have to find it, you have to track it, you have to identify it and you have to decide what to do with it," says Frederick F. Roggero. "But especially in an urban environment, it would be tough to detect and tough to defeat kinetically without shooting it down and causing collateral damage." Most recreational drones, like the one that crashed Monday, weigh only a few pounds and lack the power to do much harm. Larger models that can carry payloads of up to 30 pounds are available on the market and are expected to become more common. The FAA imposes strict safety regulations on drones flown by government agencies or anyone who operates them for commercial purposes. In contrast, hardly any rules apply to people who fly drones as a hobby, other than FAA guidelines that advise them to keep the aircraft below 400 feet and five miles from an airport. "With the discovery of an unauthorized drone on the White House lawn, the eagle has crash-landed in Washington," says Senator Charles Schumer. "There is no stronger sign that clear FAA guidelines for drones are needed."
The scenario you have painted here is a farce.
While I don't support regulation of drones outside of keeping them away from normal airplane traffic and outside private property, this is hardly a farce.
This is a 4-lb payload drone that doesn't look more than 1 meter wide. There is even a video showing it dropping a small watermelon from 250ft.
A M18 Claymore is 3.5 lbs, so this drone could carry one without issue.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
The most powerful IED that could be transported by a recreational drone would be one carrying a model rocket engine. These contain PETN solid fuel, which is a high explosive. With clever design, this solid fuel engine could be used to make a small explosion.
The problem? This would be at most enough to damage a few windows, and maybe maim somebody at point blank range.
Thinking like yours would lead to the pre-emptive banning of not only hobby RC controlled aircraft, but also hobby rocketry, and a whole shitload of other innocent hobbies-- all because "Whoooo! Something spooky but unlikely COULD happen, so in order to be "PERFECTLY SAFE", All those things have to be preemptively banned! You dont want somebody to be HURT do you!?"
When considering civil policy, one has to weigh in the direct AND indirect costs of a policy change on the standard of living and quality of life of the people who are going to be living under that policy. There is too much collateral damage for policy of this kind to justify it, even if it could maybe, theoretically, save a life.
Other things that can be used to make IEDs? A bag of flour and a box fan with a cigarette lighter.
You REALLY need to distance yourself from the "MUST FEEL SAFE AT ANY COST!" programming that the government has been pushing. Rational evaluation of that kind of policy shows, consistently, that it leads to a less desirable future than allowing the "Oooh, scary!" things to exist.