>If a rogue drone with mounted guns starts shooting up a public square, we won't know who launched it unless the manufacturer played by the rules.

a bomb hidden in a thrash bin or a stolen car parked on the public square. A bullet from sniper rifle from a mile away. No drones necessary. And just imagine what kind of, including chemical or nuclear, havoc can any engineer wreck with tech available today.

>Terrorism has always been a problem of technology.

centuries ago Church tried to outlaw crossbows:

http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/05/23/the-crossbow-a-medi...

Safety through obscurity works only for very cutting edge technologies and only for the very short time.

These things aren't able to follow instructions, target people, etc.

Go ahead and tell me what we will actually do when these things appear.

You can poo-pooh security through obscurity but we're all relying on the "infeasibility" of defeating various systems. Just as one example, reputational attacks followed systematically without rest or hesitation can subvert entire communities and make them not trust each other. You only don't realize what dedicated technology can do to subvert human systems because you haven't had to face it yet.

If every time you launched your startup, an automated process would find, hack in and bring your network down or make a thousand sleeper accounts which will bring it down later, when you couldn't rely on them "just not finding you long enough for you to secure your network", then you'd have a different attitude.

there is a difference between doomsday declaration on every technological advancement and just reasonable basic safety measures.

Specifically for drones - having millions of them in the sky would naturally lead to 2 things - automated traffic control with ground and airborne AESA radar systems that even military would envy (after all an Aegis destroyer have to track only several hundreds objects simultaneously where is drone traffic control over Bay Area would have to track a million) and the second thing - "license plate transponders" similar to car. Any drone without registered transponder will be taken off the sky by a police drone similar like an unregistered car from highway today.

So, yes, somebody would use the drones for crimes like today they can use planes or cars. So what? The drone flight will be recorded in radar and various visual systems. And like in any other case investigation will trace the stuff back to perpetrators. And sometimes not successfully.

And yes, machine guns plus cars did produce the Dillinger gang and the like for some short time. And it resulted in FBI. The way of progress...

So what? So right now when they use planes and cars you can see who was driving it, who made the car, who purchased it.

With drones, you won't be able to see any of that. The criminals who programmed the drones would be free from the law. And not only that, the "police drone" as you say might arrive too late, the drone might already have shot up some people. And then there's always the possibility that despite your best efforts, some drones are gonna fall from the sky on people.

Fair enough, but as the level of abstraction increases in crime it becomes easier for people to commit crimes that wouldn't have otherwise. Remove the human interaction and the guilt that comes along with that situation is suddenly minimized.

It doesn't seem all that different from the market for any other regulated product. The FCC approval process for electronics more or less works, not because it's impossible to get around it, but because most people don't go shopping for stuff that's not FCC-approved and most businesses don't want to risk selling it.

Of course there are always black markets, but their scale depends on how much unmet demand there is that can't be satisfied by regular markets.

The difference is that we will have self-directed autonomous technology running rampant outside confined areas, and you only need 0.1% of it to go rogue to cause serious damage.