Slashdot Mirror
UK Now Has Systems To Combat Drones (bbc.com)
Detection systems are now able to be deployed throughout the UK to combat the threat of drones, ministers say. It follows three days of disruption at Gatwick airport last week, when drones were sighted near the runway. From a report: Security minister Ben Wallace said those who use drones "either recklessly or for criminal purposes" could expect "the most severe sentence". It comes after the couple arrested and released without charge over the chaos at Gatwick said they felt "violated". About 1,000 flights were affected during 36 hours of chaos at Gatwick airport last week. The airport has spent 5 million Pound ($6.36 million) since Wednesday on new equipment and technology to prevent copycat attacks.
oh yes it didn't
No Evidence of an Actual Drone
The only purpose of "anti-drone" equipment at this time is to transfer money from the buyer to the vendor.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
So you think punishing somebody innocent is the solution to this problem? Because, you know, they only release people without charge if they have absolutely nothing on them...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The guy's statement seems meaningless to me. I mean, the Royal Marines are "able to be deployed" around the country. Just might take a week or so. Since the battery on the typical drone lasts less than 30 minutes, wtf? The question isn't why he made such a vacuous statement, it's why anyone would bother reporting it?
I suspect that the salespeople had been shopping these to the airport officials for sometime now. This week they were able to charge "full retail" and them some.
It isn't hard to build anti-drone gear, assuming anti-missile lasers exist. Drones don't have anti-anti-missile gear.
Radio direction finders can locate transmitters in range. Lancaster bombers can then take out the one that suddenly runs away when you blow up the drone.
This not only removes the problem, but also puts on a vintage aircraft show.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Shotguns lack the range or accuracy.
To judge from the high death toll from vigilantes killing bystanders, so do many American gun owners.
No American I'd trust with a gun, and there are a few, would willingly fire off rounds at a tiny moving drone next to an aircraft filled with passengers and fuel.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It is actually very hard as that gear needs to be usable next to an airport or in a city. Remember why they could not use snipers?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Come to think of it, maybe the whole attack war a marketing-stunt...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Ben Wallace filter: blah blah blah knee-jerk reaction bla bla bla.
I'm sure this was well thought out and the UK has purchased a system worth every pence.
Whatever you say man. Not paying attention or following any of it
Who is innocent? They were caught breaking the law. Interfering with runways is actually dangerous. And they did it for 36 hours. Long enough to turn on the news and see they are being looked for half way through. They were the one's violating rights.
But won't divulge any actual information.
Is it possible they will be using specially trained hawks and owls to hunt drones near the airports?
Finding bits of a drone doesn't mean that it was the actual drone causing the kerfuffle.
Where did anyone claim to have downed the drone causing the problems? The government couldn't even find the actual people responsible .
There isn't even credible footage of the drone.
Why lasers when you can fry it with microwaves?
Ezekiel 23:20
No I don't remember why they can't use a little 410 shotgun to pop drones at all. Must be fear mongering because bird shot is risk free.
Yeah shotguns are never used for bird hunting ever, nope...no one could ever hit something in the air.
Shotguns having short range is video game bullshit.
1. Mysterious drone appears (or not!) in the skies over Gatwick Airport...
2. ...Some days later, 5m is spent with an unnamed drone countermeasures company.
3. PROFIT!! (no ??? needed!)
Can someone with actual aircraft knowledge explain how drones are a danger to commercial aircraft?
The drones with which I am familiar are lightweight devices largely made of plastic and Styrofoam. It seems to me that the danger is similar to that of a bird strike, meaning substantially zero, unless one is ingested in an engine. In addition, it seems like it would be very, very difficult to actively pilot a drone -- a relatively slow moving object, having limited range and flight duration -- into the path of a commercial jet, even one on takeoff or final approach. (Besides, one can only imagine what the turbulence on or near an active commercial runway would do to the control-ability of a drone.)
What is the actual danger? What am I overlooking?
These are people the police have apparently decided weren't responsible for flying the drones that caused the disruption. Shouldn't the people who actually caused the problem be the ones going to prison?
Who is innocent? They were caught breaking the law.
No they weren't. They were arrested based on a "tip-off". There is no other evidence against them.
We really need to change the legal system in both the UK and US. The police should not be releasing names of people that are merely suspects, even when the police are under political pressure to show that they are "doing something".
This couple had their lives turned upside down. They had their names and faces plastered on news reports where they were called "morons", and blamed for "ruining Christmas". Yet the police had no evidence against them, and no justification for naming them to the press.
They should get a lawyer and sue for the mental distress caused by the police's reckless incompetence. That would be a no-brainer in America, but even in the UK, they might get a nice payout.
Who's this "we"? The unhappy in Good Ol' Blighty left in the 16th century and created the clusterfuck now known as 'murika. Good change that, an excellent example of how "we" tried to change. Meanwhile Good Ol' Blighty marched ahead over its own citizens personal liberties in the names of everything counter to its citizens liberties. Progress, aka greed/avarice. Ain't it great.
All indications are that the media worked out the identities some of them (not all, it has to be noted) and decided to run with it on the assumption they were guilty. Possibly that was via a tipoff from within the police force, possibly from the same neighbours who tipped of the police in the first place, or possibly even through actual investigation of their own. Regardless, and unlike in the US, it's certainly NOT the policy of the various police forces in the UK to release the personal details of suspects, or even those formerly charged with a crime for that matter. This is 100% on those elements of the media that decided to publish and be damned or, more accurately I hope, publish and be sued for libel.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
You saying God didn't? - They didn;t come to any harm yet , So how are YOU to question the imaginary being the LORD YOUR GOD!
"Shotguns lack the range or accuracy."
Which is a good thing for this application. Assuming the craft in this instance (and assuming there was an actual incident to begin with) were relatively standard consumer grade drones they would be unable to resist even basic bird-shot. Bird-shot is so widely used for hunting birds BECAUSE its pattern spreads out increasing the chances of hitting the target and upon coming back down to the ground it is relatively harmless due to its fairly low terminal velocity. If you do need a little extra range a "choke" on a shotgun will allow for hitting targets up to around 50 yards. Even if you're stupid enough to shoot directly at a vehicle at close range the pellets often have difficulty piercing even the thin metal of a car body let alone the more robust hull of an aircraft. Most responsible gun owners know to check what's behind the target BEFORE pulling the trigger, which is why even in a country where the number of guns outnumber people the accidental shootings pear year are 0.02% of he mortality statistics.
They must be silly then that they did not do that. Or maybe you are just an idiot with no clue how things work in the actual world.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Great idea! And fry tons of very expensive radar, communication and safety gear in the bargain!
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You ignorant fool. The fact that they were released without charge shows there is no evidence that it was them.
Try a little reading comprehension next time. Damn millennials....
No I don't remember why they can't use a little 410 shotgun to pop drones at all.
Because a shotgun has an effective range of about 50 meters, and Gatwick Airport has an area of 674 hectares (2.6 sq miles).
You would need thousands of shotguns, and some way to aim and maintain them.
Also, there is a simple counter-counter-measure: The drone could fly slightly higher.
They were caught breaking the law.
No they weren't, which is precisely why they were released without charge.
Libel requires both malice and knowledge of falsehood. Both are likely not present, you need both.
The police should not be releasing names of people that are merely suspects
They should not be releasing names Period. It's not up to the media and a public lynching to exert justice. That is for the legal system. People should be investigated, do their time for a crime and then be released when the system deems them fit to return to society without society ever knowing about it.
A few license based exceptions should occur, but again these should not result in trial by media. i.e. Someone who repeatedly drinks and drives should not get a license. Someone who touches little boys should not get a teaching permit. But in every case the public really shouldn't be involved in any way.
Then they have to fine violators heavily and make those fines like student debt here in the United States, impossible to discharge in bankruptcy. The fine for disrupting airport traffic should start at $100,000 and go up from there. Maybe then people would think twice and thrice before pulling stupid stunts like this.
What's the most severe sentence for flying your drone at the wrong time/place. I'm thinking hanged, drawn and quartered.
All indications are that the media worked out the identities some of them (not all, it has to be noted) and decided to run with it on the assumption they were guilty.
In some countries it would be illegal to publish those identities regardless of guilt perceived or otherwise.
You're a moron. There are so many things you just got wrong it's fucking incredible that you wrote it at all.
Do we have secret courts then? Here, you get arrested and if the cops decide there's enough evidence, take you in front of a Judge within 1-3 days and at that point any reporters in the court can find out your name and what you're charged with.
There is a possibility of a publication ban but the courts are reluctant to use it.
OTOH, after doing time and keeping nose clean for a couple of years, it is easy to get a pardon and then it is illegal to discriminate based on previous crimes generally. Things like being put on the sex offenders list or prohibited from owning firearms and such are part of sentencing. So only the actual diddlers are put on the list instead of someone caught pissing or sending pics to their same age underage significant other. Likewise, only banned from owning firearms after doing something stupid with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You would need thousands of shotguns, and some way to aim and maintain them.
Now this is beginning to sound entertaining.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Even if it does work, it will use radio frequency interference. And an airport is full of RF equipment - Instrument Landing System, VOR, radars, pilot communications. Or they could be shooting down drones. The airport will have to be shut down because RF interference or bullets from anti-drone guns.
Not in the UK, which is something that badly needs addressing, IMHO. It's *far* too easy to ruin someone's life just on the grounds of a faked accusation these days, especially if you are accusing a public figure or someone with celebrity status and/or can get a little rightous indignation going from the tabloids on the back of a legitimate movement like #metoo or whatever. There are already some nebulous getout clauses for the media for cases "in the public interest", but realistically I think the anonymity of all parties should be protected until formal charges at the very least, and ideally until the matter is settled in court, at which point the court may also opt to rule on any limits on disclosure. Obviously if any party chooses to waive their right to anonymity that's their decision to make, and in the case of the accuser doing so them there may be a case of that also removing the protection of the accused, but that is certainly not something that the media should decide upon.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
This being the UK, and the Tory party... don't expect to be flying your drone Christmas present within 100 miles of an airport, school, hospital or house.
Nobody cares what you think and the media will keep doing what they want. Whether you like it or not. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, you and other losers like you can do about it. Is that clear, dipshit?
Shut up, wastebasket filler, if you don't want do be brownswirled again.
to be precise.
They should not be releasing names Period.... But in every case the public really shouldn't be involved in any way.
Open courts are a cornerstone of a free society. Names should not be released until the suspect is formally charged, but from that point on it must be public.
If only we had some way of emitting millimeter waves in only one direction...
Ezekiel 23:20
Shooting down drones is easier said than done - https://youtu.be/rGLxKXtkHpY
RF jamming or trying to triangulate the guy with the control is worth a shot, but a truly dedicated attacker will program the drone to fly around airport autonomously.
It's no wonder they had such a hard time getting rid of the drone. It's pretty darn asymmetric situation, especially if it comes as a surprise. One fairly foolproof way to go about it, is to have drones of your own that you can crash into the unwelcome visitor in the airspace.
No wonder they need a right to be forgotten...
The police did not release their names. Further the news outlets that published their names are now going to find themselves paying large amount of compensation to the couple because disclosing the names of people being questioned by the police *IS* illegal in England unless the police name them which they did not.
And do you also have brooms and are quick enough on your feet to run out and check for debris and clear a whole runway in 90 seconds**, plus taxi ways...
The knee jerk response of "I've got a gun and will use it in any circumstance" doesn't help when known, well documented cases of ground debris being sucked into aero engines has caused catastrophe.
I am, of course, flattering you that you're a perfect shot. Airports are busy, crowded places and Gatwick in particular has a motorway running along one side and a LOT of long term parking spread around the perimeter -- any missed shot could cause a lot of damage, injury and even death.
** The rate of arrivals/departures at busy airports in the UK
Front page news on Boxing Day here in Australia at the moment is this story about a drone interrupting waterbombing attempts of a bushfire in Tasmania. So we need this system here too.
I don't know enough about drones but I assume the ones that have any reasonable range use radio for communicating from the remote. How hard is it to use direction finding techniques to find the source of the transmitter controlling the drone?
They say there were drones but most likely was nothing or one of their people. Then have ridiculous reaction by grounding the flights and create emotional response. Three days later they have a system deployed around all UK airports? We're talking the government here. They can't do anything in 3 days.
That system, whatever it is, has been installed already, and the 'drone' incident created to justify activating it. Wake up people.
More funny stuff coming from the UK. Is this country for real? I wonder if it's elaborate entertainment or something.
BTW Israel decided to celebrate Christmas by sending a bunch of cruise missiles but the Syrians weren't bothered much by them and shot almost everything down! If the UK needs advice about anti-air defense they can consult with Russia and Syria.
------------
1 Summary
The Integrity Initiative now accounts for most of the budget of a Scottish-registered charity named the Institute for Statecraft founded by Daniel Lafayeedney and Chris Donnelly in 2006. Most of the overt funding for this programme – about £2.6 million / year – comes from the Conflict Security and Stability Fund’s Russian Language Programme, now merged with a secret Counter Disinformation and Media Campaign. Office space in central London and most of the staff salaries, appear to be provided as a covert benefit in kind.
A close examination of past and present posts held by individuals associated with the Integrity Initiative indicates that specialists in military intelligence and other senior military personnel with responsibility for StratCom (strategic communication) operations are closely involved in the programme.
The activities of the Integrity Initiative include:
(...)
6 Role of the FCO and the Ministry of Defence in the Integrity Initiative
(...)
6.2.3 Relation to the MoD’s StratCom programme on the Syrian conflict
Kevin Stratford-Wright was a Lt-Colonel in the British Army till 2012, where his last position was as Head of Information Operations for the regional HQ in Afghanistan. From his LinkedIn page we have a description of an MoD StratCom programme between 2012 and 2015 that was ‘the UK’s largest of its kind since the Cold Warâ’, and has become ‘a template for activity elsewhere’.
UK Ministry of Defence – Strategic Communications Programme Manager: June 2012 – June 2015 (3 years 1 month) London, United Kingdom
Established a Strategic Communications programme to support UK government policy in a conflict zone.
– Developed strategy and plans.
– Engaged across the UK government (and internationally) to win support and approvals and to secure funding.
– Developed Statements of Requirement in partnership with selected enabling-contractors.
– Monitored and coordinated multiple project strands and reported on their activities and impact across UK government and to international partners.
– Generated year on year efficiency savings through constructive engagement with enabling contractors.
– The programme has been recognised as the UKâ€s largest of its kind since the Cold War. Its approach has also recently become a template for activity elsewhere (accepted by both UK government and international partners).
From the timing and scale of this StratCom programme, the ‘conflict zone’ can only be Syria. In 2012 Stratford-Wright was working in the Targeting and Information Operations(TIO) unit of the Ministry of Defence that was renamed Military Strategic Effects in 2013. As Stratford-Wright noted, his approach has become ‘a template for activity elsewhere’. One feature of the MoD’s Syria StratCom operation has been the outsourcing, via the FCO and the Conflict Security and Stability Fund, of activities to ‘enabling contractors’: companies or nonprofit foundations set up by former military officers. The media operation for the ‘moderate armed opposition’ was outsourced in late 2013. Although the tender document was issued by the FCO, metadata reveal that it
Trained birds can capture do es pretty well.
The drone actually hovered by the windows of the control tower, seriously, who would be stupid enough to do that and not expect police to follow the drone back to the users, manually. There is no way, any one could have expected to get that drone back or not get arrested trying. The whole thing a massive false flagging scam and no one can pretend otherwise. A real investigation needs to occur and those corporate douche bag types need an extended custodial sentence. I dare so more millions will be spent on anti-drone measures and new regulations created to restrict their use (not that I am opposed to that noisy invasive things but at least be honest about and do not put people's lives at risk with false flag bullshit).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Innocent until proven guilty? Why bother when we can have trial by tabloid press?
It was precisely this kind of event - collusion between the press and the police[1] - that Leveson part 2 was intended to address, but that was cancelled at the behest of Murdoch et al in return for supporting the Tories at the last general election.
[1] Yes, collusion. Do you honestly think this was investigative journalism? Far more likely to be some scummy hack slipping a few quid to a bent copper (at the Met, the most obviously and institutionally corrupt police force in the UK).
It's a clay pigeon shooting team with unlimited shells
From a country that pretty makes hunting it's national sport, I find it amusing it took them this long finding a solution. And I'm baffled it doesn't include a rifle.
No I don't remember why they can't use a little 410 shotgun to pop drones at all.
Because a shotgun has an effective range of about 50 meters, and Gatwick Airport has an area of 674 hectares (2.6 sq miles).
You would need thousands of shotguns, and some way to aim and maintain them.
Also, there is a simple counter-counter-measure: The drone could fly slightly higher.
Or one shot gun and a guy on a golf cart to drive to wherever the drone is. Fire fire rock salt, then buckshot, then rubber shells. Snipers could have used rubber bullets too. Non/Less lethal in general and basically harmless at terminal velocity after being shot UP (where the drone is) first.
Or, here is a thought, another drone carrying a short length of nylon cable. Just ram the other drone and it will either break the bad drone's rotors or tangle in them.
Oh, but it is a Shanghai Bill post. First order thinking about a second order problem. As usual.
The drone actually hovered by the windows of the control tower, seriously, who would be stupid enough to do that and not expect police to follow the drone back to the users, manually.
How do you expect them to do that? Given the range involved, and the ability to fly over obstacles, they can't follow your drone without an aircraft. You need drones to catch drones.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No one was able to even photograph this alleged "drone" - how do you expect to shoot it out of the sky?
Good luck shooting a pea from 100 yards. People seem to forget that when drones a afar.... They're f*cking tiny!
Seeing it's not the airfield but it's the airplanes that have a problem with the drones, I would suggest giving the planes ways to defend themselfs. Get a couple of passengers in gun-turrets and let them combat the skies of England once more! Sort of like this passenger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No it doesn't. And falsehood is trivially there since they named before any due process had occurred so it cannot by definition have met a reasonable standard to imply they actually were responsible
Bingo. Governments do not even try to hide their corruption anymore.
There are plenty of photographs, except they are all of black dots, thanks to the distance, altitude and size of the drone. I don't expect that will stop the loony US conspiracy theorists for a second, though. Loonies gonna loon.
You won't stop crazies being crazy, conspiracy theories are far more compelling to them than mundane reality. A rational argument won't work because they are not rational. The best you can do is ignore the conspiracy loons and lobby for better mental healthcare.
I encourage you to continue shooting 40m effective range shot against a target half a mile away and 300m up, yosemite sam.
I don't know that that's true, that they were perfectly innocent. Neither the article nor the police are clear on that. Was the drone theirs? Do they even own a drone? Did the police or anyone else ever find the drone or other potential owners?
Imagine the expense of that airport being shut down like that, the inconvenience (and sometimes downright distress) for all the passengers, etc. Someone needs to be punished for it, no question, but no question it should be someone guilty.
Here, you get arrested and if the cops decide there's enough evidence, take you in front of a Judge within 1-3 days and at that point any reporters in the court can find out your name and what you're charged with.
Banning the media from publishing names in a criminal case doesn't make it a secret court. You can go to the court case if you're interested, but expect to end up in court for a whole different reason if you then go outside and publicly publish names of the people inside.
Open courts are. Trial by media is not. If you want to go to the court, go to the court. That doesn't mean you should plaster the name of a person all over the public record, and a ban on media publishing doesn't make the court itself less open. It does however reduce that bizarre American practice where being through the courts ruins the rest of your life.
You haven't explained how to get the shotgun within 50 yards of the drone.
The problem with this whole scenario is that the media can payoff whoever they please, and get away with publishing the names. Until someone is actually arrested and charged, they should not be allowed to so so...freedom of the press be damned. I want a free press too, but they need to be responsible just like we can't yell fire in a theater willynilly.
Just another day in Paradise
Do you know who did? Isn't it likely that someone was paid off for the name(s)?...even maybe some officers?
Just another day in Paradise
Are you having fun responding to your own strawman?
Nobody is assuming that a shotgun would stop the airport from shutting down. The assumption would be that the shotgun would remove the drone from the air. You can then clean up and re-open. You have the remains of the drone and can then do some forensics on it to try to find who did it.
And no, a missed shotgun blast is not going to cause a lot of damage, injury or death unless someone is being wildly dangerous. Shotguns are horrifically damaging at short range, but lose their power extremely quickly (unless using slugs, but I'd imagine you're going to be using #7 shot or smaller for this). Number 8.5 shot loses power so quickly that I could stand 100 meters away from you, and if you shot at me, I'd probably not get hit by anything, and if I did, it'd be about as severe as if you threw a handful of gravel at me. So long as you're shooting in to the air, by the time the pellets come back down to the ground, they'll be at worse, as damaging as a snow plow throwing down grit.
Publication bans don't work so well in this internet age where info is easily published in another jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Suggest you go learn about microwaves before fear mongering.
Just another day in Paradise
Isn't information on government contracts available, unless there's some kind of security classification?
Just another day in Paradise
You might consider learning something about RF instead of making stupid statements.
Not guilty still equals lots of lovely cash in sales of those papers.
They may have to pay compensation, but the paper would still be laughing all the way to the bank ?
They were released without charge. That means there is no evidence against them. Seriously.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You think you can target that stuff well, against a moving target in a potentially reflector-rich environment? Also, microwaves are not laser. You get some side-emissions in all directions, no matter what you do. And, incidentally, all this has been tried and failed.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There is no way to make a wise $6 million purchase of ANYTHING in just a few days. It takes time to carry out due diligence. This airport management is clearly incompetent, unless the story should have said they BEGAN the process of spending the money.
>It isn't hard to build anti-drone gear
eh? not buying it.
if they are shooting at/blowing up drones at the end of the runway there won't be flights taking off.
control systems are easy.
make an autonomous drone that simply flies across the airport airspace and rf shield it to kingdom come. get it going good and fast on a complex flight path and neither radio interception/jamming or shotguns will work.
Have you ever used a shotgun on aerial targets? Have you ever been hit by shot from someone who has?
While range is limited, accuracy and danger are not a problem. Falling shot which would be suitable for a drone reaches a low terminal velocity before reaching the ground. I have used target ranges which were *under* the falling shot from a skeet range and at most it was mildly annoying and no more hazardous than sporadic heavy rain.
The drones are flying withing 50 feet of jet engines at maximum power. Does the initial velocity of the lead pellets now flying directly into the turbine matter?
News at 11, after the memorial service.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Oh whose jurisdiction? Sure you can leak something out onto the internet, but remember you're criminally liable. Do you trust the guys you leaked it to (illegally) to keep quiet about it since you own 100% of the liability?
Now you may consider doing this for something incredibly important (to you), but the reality is the ban works just fine because no one is interested in being held criminally liable to publish names no one gives a shit about.
However you're not wrong. Take the absurdity and really REALLY high profile case in Australia:
In the Herald Sun we got: https://twitter.com/oliverdarc...
In the rest of the world we got: http://www.hawaiicatholicheral...
I've flown RC toys and model rockets and am a little dismayed at the fact that in some countries (Canada) the drone usage laws are stupidly restrictive. However if you fly a drone into an airport that's just asking for trouble and not getting any sympathy from me. It's really too bad common-sense doesn't work for some folks. Some simple defences against drones might be a Net gun or a EMP Canon as most consumer drones won't be that well shielded. A hobbyist drone could be shielded against EMPs but that just makes it easier to catch the pranksters because it's customized.
I'm in Canada, right next to the USA. Americans aren't under our jurisdiction but there TV signals etc leak across the border fine. I doubt that they'd extradite over speech so as long as the American leaker doesn't come to Canada, they're not going to be prosecuted and I doubt that they'd be prosecuted even if they came to Canada and the authorities bothered investigating enough to make a case.
We've had similar problems as your high profile case, Pickton comes to mind, very high profile serial killer, had a publication ban on the case due to the interests of a fair trial, not tainting the jury. Many Americans were outraged by the censorship and there was no problem finding info about the case on the internet, even close to 20 years back.
Most publication bans, automatic in the case of minors, do work because there is no interest but given interest or a "anti-censorship" crusader...
The real problem is the culture, especially in America, where to be accused and especially arrested, means you're guilty, unless you're a Supreme Court nominee. How to change that, I don't know, especially since the American BS seems to leak out into the rest of the world. I believe it is illegal here to discriminate based on a simple arrest and the cops etc are supposed to purge most of the info like fingerprints after 6 months or a year. Proving discrimination can be hard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The drones are flying withing 50 feet of jet engines at maximum power. Does the initial velocity of the lead pellets now flying directly into the turbine matter?
News at 11, after the memorial service.
Well then it is too bad there were so many jet engines operating that the drones were never more than 50 feet from them.
Or just a shotgun