

German chancellor’s drone “attack” shows the threat of weaponized UAVs - wallflower
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/german-chancellors-drone-attack-shows-the-threat-of-weaponized-uavs/

======
philipp-de
This was staged by the german pirate party. They wanted to "take pictures" /
draw attention to the surveillance issue.

The incident wasn't discussed in terms of being a threat in german media.
Merkel was photographed smiling as the drone crashed down in front of her.

See also: [http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-
campaign-...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-campaign-
event-visited-by-mini-drone-a-922495.html)

~~~
stephengillie
They would have been more effective if they had 50-100 individually-controlled
quadcopters, and had them hover near specific individuals, looking at facial
expressions, phone screens, gestures, etc. Crashing the drone at the guy's
feet makes them seem harmless, or even hapless.

------
eigenvector
> The drone was harmless, aside from potential political collateral damage to
> Merkel's Christian Democratic Party, and the pilot of the drone was released
> after being briefly held by police.

Can you imagine where this guy would be right now if he had attempted this
near President Obama?

~~~
venomsnake
Gitmo. But Europeans are generally a bit more reluctant to freak on non-
existing threats than US (not impossible though).

And you just don't have grounds on which to accuse him - flying drones is
legal, he didn't endanger anyone and it was a prank.

------
noonespecial
Drones are sensational but a deer rifle with a scope is going to be a much
bigger threat for a long time to come. RC planes were available in '63 but I
doubt Lee Harvey Oswald considered one of those.

You can stop "drones" like these with a simple net if they really become a
problem.

~~~
devx
You're thinking short term. DARPA was already testing drones that can see who
you are from 1.8 KM above.

~~~
Someone
See [http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/darpa-
can-s...](http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/darpa-can-see-
you-17500-feet-air). 17500 feet is about 5km, but the video does not indicate
that this can see "who you are", although it is close enough for tracking
persons.

I wonder why they released that video, though. Do they need more funding? Is
it semi-faked to scare off would-be villains? Are the real things way better,
and is this a diversion?

------
plaguuuuuu
lol @ the countermeasures being high tech lasers.

Spray them with water or vegetable oil. Water is easiest - just use a high
pressure hose to knock them out of the sky / potentially break flight-critical
components. Oil requires some special equipment but would presumably ruin the
propellers/rotors.

~~~
roel_v
The threat is not in a single one of them, the threat is in drone swarms. We
(as in: the general public, I'm quite sure secluded labs have working
prototypes) don't have the technical details figured out, but in 5 years, it
will be possible for a swarm of 100's of these things to appear out of nowhere
(from backpacks, rooftops, garbage cans, sewer drains) and, blitzkrieg style,
overwhelm even largish targets within minutes. It will take very sophisticated
counter measure technology to correctly identify, isolate and attack a
sufficiently large part of such a swarm; technology that will not be available
at the time motivated amateurs will be able to deploy such weapons.

These are interesting times to live in, indeed.

~~~
alextingle
> It will take very sophisticated counter measure technology to correctly
> identify, isolate and attack a sufficiently large part of such a swarm

Or, you know... nets.

------
Derbasti
It is really depressing that we live in a society where our first instinct is
to think "what would happen if someone strapped a bomb to that".

In contrast, in Germany this wass a prank, and only about surveillance. And
the police let the guy go after a short interrogation.

------
gojomo
The blog Marginal Revolution considered the question a few months ago: "What
is the political equilibrium when insect-sized drone assassins are available?"

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/wha...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/what-
is-the-political-equilibrium-when-insect-sized-drone-assassins-are-
available.html)

Adapting my comment from there:

One possibility is that in the future, high-status (and thus also high-office)
can only be safely held by pseudonymous cryptographic identities that can’t be
linked to soft, locatable, assassination-prone meatspace bodies.

Note that this also makes it possible for a high-status identity/officeholder
to be a branded collective (or AI) that continues beyond the death of any its
members.

So, potential news from that future:

 _The Supreme Court, on a 5-4 ruling authored by Chief Justice
@CyberJeffersonian_7, rejected the suspiciously-late election returns from
Puerto Marte, throwing the 2096 election to Senator @Verax1983 over Governor
@Locke2001, in the closest Electoral College contest since Bush-Gore in 2000.

From his/her undisclosed location, President-Elect @Verax1983 praised the
ruling and again denied allegations that he/she has been a software-only
entity for the last 17 years._

I, for one, welcome our new pseudonymous overlords.

~~~
jacquesm
I see some Enders Game references in there.

You may very well be right about your future vision, I'd love to be a fly on a
wall somewhere in 2100.

~~~
hexscrews
You might be able to do that, If Brain-Machine interfaces become advanced
enough.

------
ajb
This sort of thing could be done almost as easily without the drone. For
example, the 1991 Mortar attack on the British Prime Minister:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_mortar_attack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_mortar_attack)

It's worth noting that his response was "democracies cannot be intimidated by
terrorism". Our current politicians are more craven.

------
narfquat
If Battlefield 3 has taught me anything, someone is going to strap a brick of
C4 to one soon enough.

~~~
stephengillie
I know quadcopters are very sensitive to weight, and a 10oz (285g) quadcopter
could probably not carry more than a 1oz (28g) payload. How destructive is 1oz
(28g) of C4?

I want to see the destructive potential of a quantity of C4 graphed against
its weight.

~~~
bsullivan01
Kinetic energy might be enough to do some serious harm. Or imagine putting a
knife in front and via!

But they'll probably buy larger drones, take out some parts /weight and
replace it with c4.

~~~
stephengillie
I'd never thought of stabbing someone with a drone. How much pressure does it
take to puncture the average human's skin? How fast can a quadcopter fly? How
much does a steak knife weigh? We can build the future weapons of war...

~~~
venomsnake
Less than you think unless you hit a rib or bone. But if you are really nasty
just put pressure operated container that fires a poison into the body
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_umbrella](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_umbrella)
style. Depending on the payload they won't save him even if he is in ER the
moment he gets shot.

------
krrrh
There was a similar politically-motivated drone "attack" against Gary Kasparov
5 years ago:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbnySBqioB0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbnySBqioB0)

------
angersock
Oh great, a lot of fear-mongering about to happen.

We honestly can't defend against all of these things--might as well simply try
to structure society to be resilient in the face of inevitable attacks, and
try not to make such things desirable to anybody even remotely sane.

~~~
velik_m
The obvious solution of course is to move all the people (except select few)
underground for their own safety.

~~~
jacquesm
I'm going to be in any one of the following businesses:

\- light guides

\- vitamin D pills

\- solaria

