Beware the terrorist drones! For they are coming! Pass new laws!

Re: yeah, that'll work..

Exactly.

Though You can get (and have been able to for some time) petrol powered remote control helicopters that can easily lift 30-40kg so why the focus is on drones is beyond me...

Re: yeah, that'll work..

Along with all the other thoughts/plans, it'll only impact honest, law abiding citizens.

Well, at least there is now government funding (read: your tax money) to develop a means to safeguard your privacy. Saves me from having to risk a fine by taking the things down with a shotgun.

Which reminds me, it's time to develop a directional signal scanner. It appears there's a market for it.

Re: yeah, that'll work..

Whilst I agree with your point for the most part there is some intersection between the set of people likely to comply with registration and the set of idiots likely to fly in restricted airspace or otherwise recklessly so the terrorists won't register argument is not fatal to the general principle of attempting to regulate drone use

Re: yeah, that'll work..

That FAA "registration program" is to establish FAA's right to dictate law related to drones. It's only allowed to control commercial airspace and specifically banned from regulating toys. So it created a registration program, demands people register for free. In doing so they're accepting FAA's right to regulate in that area.

FAA can then apply its real demands, citing these registrations as evidence of its right to regulate in that area.

Re: yeah, that'll work..

In the UK unenforceable law is not a problem.

It's perfectly legal to manufacture and/or sell a radio scanner able to listen to aircraft communications. But the Wireless Telegraphy Act, reissued in 2006, makes it an offence to listen in on any conversation you're not invited to. I guess there's a superficial sense to that in terms of "it's rude", but aircraft conversations go along the lines of "G-ABCD Fife radio request basic service and radio check", "G-ABCD Fife radio, pass your message".

The only reason anyone would listen to this is because they're nosy, they're plane spotters interested in who's arriving and leaving, they're training for a FRTOL license or maybe they have malicious intent.

Those with "malicious intent" will not take a blind bit of notice of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, everyone else's use is innocent, so what's the point having a law that in any case is almost impossible to enforce? Police or two witnesses would have to pinch someone's headphone or hear them using a scanner in a field, then have enough time to waste to prosecute them.

Unenforceable law fills the statute books with wasted paper/storage, and forces bodies like OFCOM to produce advice notes like this.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/guidance

Surely authorities have better things to do identifying why the secretive observer wants to listen to the messages? (And if trainee pilots and plane spotters openly listened to aircraft on scanners they could focus their efforts on people trying to hide their use.)

Re: Every excuse is good...

... and someone noticed that, as reported the other day in El Reg, "instead of being a program ... worth only US$4 million in 2010, the asteroid-detection budget has expanded to $50 million for fiscal year 2016."

Paranoia pays plentifully.

Re: Drones...

My exact thought. And that Lancaster is on the safe side compared to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potAETW-VG8

Considering that you do not need radio control after take off any more as you can build an autopilot using Arduino and/or Raspberry Pi and any of the available auto-pilot stacks...

Re: Drones...

Upvoted because I came here to post something similar.

Do the military use small electric powered multi rotor helicopters for unmanned strike missions?

No - because the carrying capacity of a fixed wing aircraft is so much better.

Fixed wing aircraft have other major benefits including the load capacity to carry a sophisticated autopilot which can deliver the aircraft to destination without any line of sight radio malarkey.

[Just checked and it looks like a Raspberry Pi could do the job.]

Not least, they have the ability to glide for a significant distance to reduce the sound of their approach.

So someone wants to control the proliferation of cheap plastic helicopters because they can be used for all sorts of annoying things like journalists taking pictures of celebrities nude sunbathing, and criminals scouting all aspects of a building prior to gaining entry. Oh, and smuggling stuff into prisons. This is before you even get to the bunch of idiots who think it is fun to shine laser pointers at aircraft and who would probably wet themselves with excitement at the thought of buzzing planes on final approach with their new toys.

So how to get the new laws they want? Because terrism. Simples.

Meanwhile I understand that I cannot legally use one of these things to do a quick survey of my roof, chimney stack and guttering because I live in an urban area.

You would think that this would be a wonderful tool for builders, roofers, surveyors, estate agents to inspect and photograph a house from all angles. Haven't seen this happening yet.

So basically, grumble, grumble, waste of time, stops me doing the very reasonable things I want to, grumble, grumble.

Re: Drones...

Scale model Lancaster? Hell No. I want a full sized Vulcan!

Re: GPS Blanking

Not to mention that most mass market drones use the 2.4GHz band which means they can be "shot down" by a £25 microwave oven after 10 minutes worth of modification (same as WiFi).

You can get a whole world of "line of sight" from the upper floor of a decent sized building and transmit a webcam image back to the controller (MCLOS). SACLOS or inertial guidance is also well within the capability of anyone who knows who AdaFruit are and where Raspberry Pi forums can be found. TERCOM? OpenCV can do facial recognition, let alone pattern match a landmark!

GPS jamming is worthless except against clowns. There are far too many alternate options. The reason MCLOS still exists is precisely because it is "unjammable". As with "strong encryption", there is no way to keep sophisticated technology out of the hands of anyone who wants it. There is probably enough tech in a Shenzhen generic phone to build guidance for a credible cruise missile.