The U.S. isn’t prepared for the growing threat of drones

WaPo ^ | July 4, 2018 | Kirstjen M. Nielsen

[Seizethecarp]

Drone technology offers the potential to change our world... But the technology also has a dark side. It can be used to spy on us, to threaten our critical infrastructure, or to attack crowds and public places.

For years, the Department of Homeland Security has worried about the dangers of unmanned aerial systems, and we have sought the legal authority to protect Americans against corrupted aerial devices. Today I have a pressing message for Congress: Time is running out.

As secretary of homeland security, I can tell you that threat is outpacing our ability to respond. Without congressional action, the U.S. government will remain unable to identify, track and mitigate weaponized or dangerous drones in our skies.

Unfortunately, the laws on the books today were not written with weaponized drones in mind. As a result, the nation’s two biggest law enforcement departments — DHS and the Justice Department — have their hands tied when it comes to protecting Americans.

While we do have certain limited capabilities for scanning the skies for rogue drones, we largely lack the updated tools and most sophisticated authorities to monitor and mitigate inbound threats.

For instance, DHS should be able to access signals being transmitted between a nefarious drone and its ground controller to accurately geolocate both quickly. This could allow authorities to take control of the device or stop its operator on the ground to prevent a potential attack.

Yet current legal constraints prohibit us from doing so and from addressing other drone-threat scenarios, such as drones configured to operate without a human operator, which will require a separate set of solutions.

Worse still, we are prevented from even testing certain drone-defense technologies where we really need them, such as in urban environments to protect large gatherings and public events.

[AndyJackson]

Look. She may have a point, but this reads awfully like one of those congressional commission reports where some inside the beltway consultants working at some association or think tank or politically connected consultancy are seeking a bunch of federal bucks to hold meetings and write reports.

But that's the DC swamp cynic in me speaking.

[Army Air Corps]

Meanwhile, all the components to make your own “drone” are out on the open market.

[EasySt]

“Meanwhile, all the components to make your own “drone” are out on the open market.”

Along with the open source designs, 3D Print models, and software.

[Daniel Ramsey]

Drones come in handy more than most people realize.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"And what else would be taken out?"

The meteor would create a large chasm.

So huge it might be called a sar...chasm.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

...but then the government could spend all our money on covering it with a giant tarp.

[TChad]

Meanwhile, all the components to make your own “drone” are out on the open market.

Yes. If recreational drones were made illegal, it would be easy to break the law.

It seems to me that recreational drone users love their hobby, and the rest of us find it annoying or worse. We don't like the noise, and we don't like having our privacy invaded with flying cameras.

Also, we vastly outnumber the drone users.

So, I suspect that a political movement to ban recreational drone use might succeed right now. It would certainly succeed after the first use -- anywhere in the world -- of hundreds of drones programmed to kill humans.

[EasySt]

Yet how long will it be before the common personal comm system includes a couple bee sized drones that take turns recharging themselves?

[Big Red Badger]

Oh...
I see now...
You Funnyman you!

[Revolutionary]

There is the potential to be very, very nasty. So far the bad guys have not put all of the pieces together yet. So far the greatest use is to move contraband into the prisons.

[EasySt]

And leave government use of hundreds of drones “programmed to kill” undefended humans unchallengeable by said humans?

[TChad]

...bee sized drones that take turns recharging themselves?

Cat toys of tomorrow.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

There is no constitutional right to own a drone.

There is also no Constitutional power granted to the Federal Government to forbid them.

The Constitution was not a limit on an individual's rights. It was a limit on Government power.

[freeandfreezing]

It would certainly succeed after the first use -- anywhere in the world -- of hundreds of drones programmed to kill humans.

That has been going on for years, and the number of people killed is in the thousands, not counting the people who were the actual targets. The non-combatant people on the receiving end of our drone strikes would like them to be illegal, but that hasn't happened.

[mrsmith]

Why parrot ignorant and irresponsible talking points?
I figure people do that to feel good about themselves.
Suggest you read up on the subject and try to influence the best outcome.

I just rememberecd the “rc car chase” in “The Dead Pool”.
My but times do change.

[TChad]

You are talking about the use of individual, large drones. I meant the simultaneous release of hundreds of small, recreation-sized drones. A cloud of drones.

[precisionshootist]

I don’t worry about criminals with drones. I worry about criminals with badges with drones.

[shanover]

Take a gander at some drone videos out of Syria and Iraq. This is a very real threat. There are countermeasures that I no doubt are deployed at major American events.

[Hugh the Scot]

I doubt there’s Constitutional authority for the FedGov to regulate them in any way.

[GingisK]

Strictly speaking, a drone is an “arm”. They are covered.