
Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects' - anon1385
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46665615
======
dTal
Serious question - is there any actual evidence that there was ever a real
drone? There are no available pictures of the supposed drone, which seems odd
if it was 'buzzing the tower'. It also seems odd that it kept 'popping up' in
random places, yet nobody managed to follow it with their own drone, or track
it on radar. And now the police are arresting people with no connection to the
incident and clearly still have no idea what was going on. The most
parsimonious explanation would appear to me to be that somebody reported a
drone once, possibly mistakenly, and once the extremely costly call had been
made to shut down Gatwick, it snowballed into a mass hysteria / UFO sighting
scenario, with everyone seeing 'drones' all over the place.

Of course, it's possible there is in fact ironclad evidence for the official
story that we're not being told. But it seems to me there's lots of incentive
for the police to share all they know, and huge incentives not to admit that
it was all a cock-up.

~~~
spuz
You are not the only one questioning the existence of the drones:
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/23/police-admit-
may...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/23/police-admit-may-never-
have-gatwick-drone/)

~~~
dmix
That article is paywalled but what about this bit of the parent article?

> "We are [..] carrying out a forensic examination of a damaged drone found
> near the perimeter of the airport.

Sounds like some evidence of at least one drone. But regardless this is still
likely a culmination of panic over a potentially one-off sighting.

------
Normal_gaussian
I'm sure the two of them are enjoying having their faces plastered over the
sunday news
([https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers))
and sorting through all the lovely messages they've received over the last day
or so.

~~~
ajb257
Whilst a free press is important, I would argue that 'a man and a woman have
been held in connection with the Gatwick Airport drone incident' would
suffice. Kudos to the BBC for recognising this.

It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless
they're actually found guilty of a crime. Publishing their names and pictures
before _even being charged_ does nothing but open potentially innocent people
up to danger.

Whoever caused the Gatwick chaos needs to be brought to justice, but this is
beyond reckless

~~~
zozbot123
> ... It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are
> unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. ...

On the contrary, the commonly-acknowledged right of _habeas corpus_
essentially _requires_ the government to make the fact that someone is being
detained public, at least if the prisoner himself so chooses. Privacy is a red
herring here - _habeas corpus_ is about preserving basic freedoms.

~~~
dahart
What do you mean when you say habeas corpus essentially requires a detention
to be made public? Habeas corpus provides for a review of the legality of a
detention for the requester. How & when is any information given publicly
under habeas corpus laws? What makes you think habeas corpus and privacy can’t
co-exist?

~~~
hopler
Without public knowledge and pressure, there is no check on authoritarian
abuse and the law has no teeth.

~~~
dahart
Maybe, but that's not what I asked. Don't habeas corpus laws provide public
_access_ to a (perhaps private) legal review? When do laws require sharing
results with the public, as the GP comment claimed? Can there be checks on
authoritarian abuse that don't require public dissemination? Is the threat of
publicity exactly the same thing as a requirement for publicity?

~~~
wbl
Imagine a country where the police arrest people and they vanish in the middle
of the night, with no way to determine what their status is.

~~~
HarryHirsch
There is no need to imagine a country where mugshots are freely available,
even is that person is later released without charge, that already exists, and
we know what the practice does.

------
duaoebg
I assumed they were the wrong suspects as soon as I found out they were hard
core hobbyists. Pulling a stunt like this would be social death and would kill
the hobby for them. No-one would want to hang out or work with them again.

~~~
aaron695
Except she didn't use drones at all, and he wasn't really interested anymore.

So, does that now make them perfect suspects?

For me a "perfect suspects" is a hard core hobbyist or someone who does it for
a living.

What's the next step after perfecting a hobby or being bored because it's a
forced job other than taking it to the next level?

Given the limited info it wasn't just a kid popping a drone over given how
hard it seemed to be to catch them so that leaves someone who knows what they
are doing.

Who cares about "social death" over prison time? If anything it makes them
heroes to many/most people, a good FU to the system.

------
jstanley
There must have been some motive for whoever did this. AFAIK, no environmental
or terrorist groups have claimed responsibility.

Is it possible that this has been done by someone within the police or
intelligence community in order to create a pretext for pushing through drone
licensing laws?

~~~
CydeWeys
Could just be some immature troublemaker, like people who shine lasers at
planes. There doesn't need to be some real motive.

~~~
ngngngng
Not an expert, but this really seems like something a teenager that recently
acquired a drone and was showing off to his friends would do.

------
jswizzy
I work with small drones, sUAS, and back in the day some of the guys were too
lazy to go to the airfield to fly them and would just go to a beach park
instead but it was close to an airforce base and an medium size airport.
Anyways they were flying pumas and had the entire police force of the city
show up. Luckily the drones they had were fixed wing and designed to just fall
out of the sky so they brought them down really quick and got away. I'm sure
no one ever figured out who was flying drones in their airspace.

------
lifeisstillgood
The front page of the Daily Mail was "Are these the Morons who shut Gatwick
with a Drone?"

I await the out of court settlement with interest

------
scottmf
Considering how well organized the attack seems to have been, I assume those
behind it know a lot about airports/drones.

I wonder if it could be a government researcher worried about a lack of
funding/preparation for this kind of attack (similar to the FBI's conclusion
regarding the anthrax attacks)?

It doesn't seem like a protest, so unless it's economic terrorism or a state-
backed attack, what else is it likely to be? A former pilot with a grudge?

~~~
flycaliguy
Or a potential government contractor selling anti-drone technology.

------
pjc50
Has this story been updated? There's now a "may not have been a drone at all"
in the middle?

~~~
jstanley
Daily Mail have this video:
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1828378/Video-D...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1828378/Video-
Drone-spotted-flying-Gatwick-airport-London.html)

Although I have no idea if it is real.

------
stackola
What if the while thing was a product demo? A group showing off their DDDOS
(distributed drone denial of service) services?

------
chatterbeak
Also, the drones may never have existed.

