The situation is bullshit the way it is presented in the article. A HRT would have been large news on the outskirts of Denver with plenty of local news coverage. The "gang" would have had plenty of air time. I'm not saying a situation did not occur, I'm saying not as how it was presented.

From TFA:

> hostage rescue team set up an elevated observation post

> the head of the agency’s operational technology law unit told attendees of the AUVSI Xponential conference here.

We don't know when this incident occurred nor do we know if this was a surveillance op or part of an actual raid. The article is possibly FUD, but this isn't outside of the realm of possibility.

In my neck of the woods, drones have been known to drop contraband in prime locations at our state maximum-security prison[0]. Surveillance, and counter-surveillance is not a huge leap to make from there. Being able to disrupt a top-tier police unit for a few grand is money well spent.

[0] - https://www.postandcourier.com/news/in-south-carolina-the-fi...

The whole story sounded fishy. That would have definitely made national news with a hostage situation and drones used by the hostage takers...yeah something is fishy.

Don’t be so sure. HN has a strong “civil liberties” perspective, and sometimes that equates to a “fuck the police” POV that is blinding.

Moderately sophisticated people can do all sorts of things to undermine police activity, especially raids. Think about things like detecting WiFi, tactical radios or Bluetooth devices.

The police operate in a dark world, and the counterparties that they interact with are fundamentally bad actors.

Yes and it's very bizarre. Here are the notes on the two amendments:

> One would make it illegal to “weaponize” consumer drones.

> The other — and arguably more important — amendment would require drones that fly beyond their operators’ line of sight to broadcast an identity allowing law enforcement to track and connect them to a real person.

Literally neither of these would have had any effect on the case at hand. I'm reminded of gun control legislation - except you can't build a gun from scratch in your basement and quadcopters are very ineffective at killing people.

>except you can't build a gun from scratch in your basement

You can't? While the equipment isn't something everyone owns, there are those who do own it and can do it.

While not quite from scratch, I have built guns. I might add that it is a very interesting and educational experience for anyone interested. Also, know that so long as you aren't a felon and the gun you build complies with federal and state laws, it is completely legal to do so.

You've assembled guns, probably, from parts you purchased. Like Legos. I doubt very much that too many people are hammer-forging 7075 receivers in their garages...

Drawing back to the original point, who is building a drone, or anything. There is only one guy I know of (primitive technology on you tube), and the most advanced thing hes made is a hatchet and charcoal.

This is like saying you didn't make homemade bread if you didn't grow the wheat out back. It is a pointless statement countering an assertion no one asserted because the rest of us know that home made bread means from store bought ingredients unless specified otherwise.

Likewise, I doubt that too many people are etching flight controller PCBs and building brushless motors from scratch in their garages.

You’d be surprised then - first of all, no “hammer-forging” is required, nor is 7075 whatever.

Take this for example (warning, language!) https://www.northeastshooters.com/xen/threads/diy-shovel-ak-...

This is actually my point. It didn't say "no one" is doing it. Even though his means are very crude, he still needs a furnace, a welder, and a lot of other tooling (receiver jig, etc.) to get to the point where he can use a bucket of pre-fab parts (most notably the barrel).

That guy is building a receiver, then assembling. Most people who are into it are just assembling.

From scratch, as in from bar stock and other raw metals? Yes, very easily, in fact. It's technology that is well over 200 years old. Machine guns are 100+ years old.

Making primers and smokeless powder might be tricky, but the mechanical stuff is easy peasy.

> I'm reminded of gun control legislation - except you can't build a gun from scratch in your basement

Blatantly false for that bit, but I agree with the rest of what you're saying.

> The other — and arguably more important — amendment would require drones that fly beyond their operators’ line of sight to broadcast an identity allowing law enforcement to track and connect them to a real person.

Not terribly hard to circumvent, just put in the data of a public official.

I'm in agreement here. I don't think the article had even the slightest hint of wanting to illegalize drones (unlike the strawman of "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"), but rather that if someone is found to be operating a drone in a weaponized manner then an additional criminal charge can be applied, much like simple robbery can be increased to robbery with a deadly weapon when the suspect uses a gun.

To bring it back, it is perfectly legal to build guns or even vehicles in your basement or garage, but if you wish to operate either of them then they must conform to some standards in order to make them legal. Same with quadcopters, if you build one in your basement and wish to operate it legally, it should be required to identify you as the owner. Whether that is compiling in a hash identifier that's tied to a national database of registered operators, or a postit note with your name on it taped to the bottom is irrelevant. If you're found operating a drone without the identifier, you should be charged with violating the laws. There will always be people that build untraceable "ghost" drones or guns, but from my quick research untraceable guns make up less than one percent of all known weapons used in crimes. Until it starts reaching a couple percent, it seems like off the shelf guns or drones will continue to be the issue. There is almost zero barrier to entry outside of cost to owning a drone. They'll continue to become cheaper as time moves on, so the problem will only get worse. Until they get banned entirely, drones made in a non-production facility like a basement intended to evade law enforcement are a non-issue.

You might want to look into "black pipe shotguns". You can build a federally legal gun in the US for under $20 with parts from Home Depot. In minutes, with only very basic hand tools like a drill.

>except you can't build a gun from scratch in your basement

Can't build a a very sophisticated gun, but it is certainly possible to fabricate something that shoots bullets after nothing but a trip to the hardware store. For both your legal and physical well being, I do not recommend trying it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

> build a gun from scratch

i dunno. i hear these 'backyard' gun makers in the Philippines are pretty advanced

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/04/08/backyard-gun-sh...

Yes, there are a number of solutions that allow you to shoot out a net (not just in the movies) -- here's one:

https://www.budk.com/ProductDetail.aspx?itemno=56%20BU4303

3-Pack is $19

"Using 12 gauge rounds as the delivery system, the shells separate into tethered pieces after firing them. As these parts separate and extend outward, a web is created that is 5' in diameter. When the SKYNET round reaches the drone, the tethers and round pieces wrap around the drone, interfering with the propellers and forcing the drone to the ground. If the SKYNET round misses the target, it is designed to parachute safely to the ground to reduce any unwanted damage or injury. There are three in the pack."

(edit, parenthetical for clarity)

Yeah I smelled that too, especially the part about requiring drones to broadcast ownership identities so law enforcement can track them to real people. I bet when cops use drones theirs won't broadcast any ownership ids…

I'm suspicious about the phrase "FBI hostage rescue team" aka FBI HRT. Those are tactical units. So yes, this was a raid. But it didn't necessarily involve hostages.

Why is HN so obsessed with drones? I keep seeing very passionate comments defending them like it's a human right to fly one. Care to explain?

Technical: Drones are a neat way to use your technical acumen to affect the real world. Making a python script look for prime numbers is kind of neat, but making a python script cause a robot to fly around and pickup trash in your background is so much cooler. People want to have drones remain legal because they want a cool technical outlet to use their skills on.

Effectiveness: When they outlaw drones, then only outlaws will have drones. Wait a second, the outlaws already have drones, so if they make drones illegal then they're not actually doing anything but causing problems for law abiding citizens. The criminals will continue breaking the law.

Liberty: Combine the previous two and you get liberty. Outlawing drones will not be effective in protecting citizenry or the interests of the state in serving the citizenry. Owning a drone is pretty cool. If there is a cool thing that I can own AND me owning it doesn't cause effect the well-being of my fellow citizens then a state that is interested in freedom and liberty will allow me to own it.

On the other hand if the state is interested in oppressing the citizenry, then outlawing drones would be an acceptable action to take.

Personally, I would rather live in a state that tends towards enabling liberty in the citizenry instead of one that tends towards oppressing the citizenry.

As somebody who flies UAVs for a living, I can say that whenever the laws squeeze tighter, it doesn't really seem to make a difference on the recreational side, but the number of hoops that need to be jumped through on the commercial side go up. For every recreational/bad-actor that does something dumb, I know that I will be punished by the overseeing bodies and made to explain why I won't do [irresponsible thing | illegal thing], plus will have more people in the public with a bad perception of my work, despite the amount of safety precautions I take.

It does read like propaganda, but you're saying an arms race is a better solution than a bit of regulation? I'm not convinced.

>> you're saying an arms race is a better solution than a bit of regulation?

What regulation? You can build your own drone with open source software. People with criminal intent are not going to build their drones according to regulations and put in a transponder that broadcasts their ID.

If you don't want drones around just plug your taser into a magnetron...

Most criminals lack the skills, tools, and working areas necessary to build a custom drone.

I don't have a printed source off-hand, but a law enforcement friend once described to me how wealthy criminal (narcotics) gangs work. Your average "dumb street thug" is a low-level throwaway in the eyes of the gang. They work through a series of intermediaries, to avoid the low-level guys knowing too much, very much like spies.

The guys at the top are much smarter, and are running in some cases multi-billion dollar operations. You have to be smart to be in charge of something at that scale, whether it's Wal-Mart or MS-13. I'm not saying the gang bosses are good, but many of them are smart. They have "technology teams" of sorts. After all, somebody thought to strap drugs to drones and experimented with payloads before sending them...

Which is why I wrote it as "most" criminals. There may be other valid reasons to object to this proposed law, but the existence of a few smart criminals at the head of organized gangs isn't one of them. Otherwise why bother having laws at all?

Most criminals are honestly pretty dumb. Real life isn't like the movies.

If criminals can pull off USD50 Billion Ponzi Schemes on the financial markets, (Madoff), and hack into Experian to attain credit card data on the majority of Americans. I'm sure MORE than a few of them can work out how to build a drone, or forty.

The Mexican cartels were recently known to be kidnapping network engineers and field technicians to compel them into building private communications infrastructure.

You don't have to know how to build it yourself, you just need to stick a gun in the ribcage of someone who does.

I've heard of people using falconry, training a bird to strike and down the drone.

I've always wondered if that was a realistic way of taking a drone down, it seems the risk to the birds from the spinning propellers would be substantial.

Peregrine falcons hit their prey after a stoop (dive) of over 200MPH. They can handle it. Plus, you can train the birds to avoid the blades; these are apex predators for flight.

Those propellers will cut you up pretty bad. Are eagle talons stronger than human flesh?

Yes, considerably stronger. They are one of the most deadly tools in the animal kingdom in fact.

The falcons hit their prey with their talons, at 200mph. Figure a Peregrine weighs 2-3lbs, that's a lot of force. Raptor talons are pretty tough.

I mean I guess that could work ... although I wonder how fast it takes to train a falcon to do that sort of work. I'm just thinking that if the criminal gangs start losing too many drones all it takes is arming them with small explosives that detonate on impact to take out the birds. I suspect that it's going to be faster for people to build drones with bird killing capabilities than it is to train the birds.