Editor
The rise of the do-it-yourself drone – which looks destined to become one of this year’s most popular festive gifts – is raising security and privacy concerns that could have implications for the wider UAV industry
With summer once more rudely hustled out of the door by the premature Christmas countdown there’s nevertheless a real buzz about this year’s festive season. Or perhaps that should be a high-pitched whine. Because this year promises to be the year of the drone.
Originally developed for the defence industry, drones – or unmanned air systems (UAS) – have been available as consumer devices for a couple of years now but many observers believe 2014 could be the year that the technology really takes off (sorry about that).
A quick google search uncovers a range of devices, mainly quadcopters, with a staggering range of capabilities. Indeed, just a couple of hundred pounds gives you access to kind of remotely operated, GPS enabled systems that once only the military had access to. High street technology chain Maplins – which now sells a wide range of devices – even features one of the vehicles in its latest tv advertising campaign.
It’s not difficult to see why the technology is generating so much excitement. The ability to hover above your home and shoot your own aerial movies will be attractive to many. Whilst the semi-autonomous behaviour of some current devices – for instance the ability to use GPS to pre-programmed routes – further broadens the technology’s appeal.
What’s more, the build-your-own drone kits that are now widely available are a great way to enthuse young people about the wonders of engineering, and teach them the kind of hands-on skills that they’ll rarely learn from a games console.
The problem is, that with these capabilities comes the potential for trouble, and the kind of systems that are now widely available have some obvious and far less benign potential applications.
Two recent football-related incidents highlight the technology’s potential to cause disruption. Earlier this month, the arrival of a drone carrying an Albanian flag sparked angry scenes at an Albania v Serbia football match. Closer to home, a man was arrested after flying a drone over Manchester City’s ground during a game against Tottenham.
Meanwhile, a report on drones published this week by the University of Birmingham Policy Commission – which is chaired by former director of GCHQ Prof David Omand – raises the terrifying prospect that terrorist groups could potentially use small, commercially available vehicles to mount attacks in the UK. ‘Fast, cheap, available micro RPA (remotely piloted aircraft), in particular, are difficult to defend against, given their ability to fly past and over obstacles to find their target,’ claims the report.
Clearly, there are genuine public safety concerns here, and as the policy commission’s report argues, preventing the technology being used for criminal purposes represents a major challenge.
Winning this battle should also be a major priority for the UK’s wider UAV industry – which is keen to open up civil airspace to large unmanned air vehicle in order to make it easier to test and develop an area of technology that is of growing importance to the UK economy.
As one of those attending a roundtable on the topic hosted by The Engineer back in 2012 claimed, the irresponsible use of widely available consumer drones could irrevocably damage public opinion and hold back development of this emerging area of industry.
The payload of these home drones is tiny, mine can lift a gopro, without its case, and that’s it.
The idea of terrorists filling them up with bombs is laughable, espcially since remote controlled aircraft aren’t exactly new and no-one has used those to blow anything up.
I think the real concern of the authorities is that they don’t like the idea of surveillance working in both directions.
Now that the more complex parts (e.g. autopilots) are readily available on the net, these parts can be incorporated into large, fully autonomous, accurate, long range weapons.
The biggest danger to the general public is a lack of imagination on the part of those whose job it is to protect us with regard to what it is possible to make and how it could be used.
I don’t worry about the terrorist angle, after all they can’t carry much, and if someone who is determined, competent, and able to source something sufficiently nasty to carry, well they have plenty of other delivery methods to choose from anyway.
My concern is the low risk / nuisance value of them being abused in ways that annoy people (e.g. at football matches) or they end up crashing in to buildings and cars resulting in non-trivial damage.
Just another Fad that will fizzle out when the public gets fed up with taking shots of their house and garden and local authorities ban them from public places.
The article infers that this is military technology / hardware gaining a commercial application. This is not the case. There are many manufacurers of military drones who started in model aircraft control and branched out into military applications. In reality it is often the other way round.
The biggest advance is further miniaturisation of existing systems so that they are now able to be fitted into very small airframes.
As stated by another respondent these aircraft are not large enough to carry a significant amount of explosive.
So long as they are used sensibly by the genuine enthusiast they are safe. But potential threats exist from other mis use of technology e.g. lasers which are capable of blinding pilots if shone in the direction of an aircraft. There are of course already legislation in place to protect against such mis use. I dont think we should get carried away with uneccessary reactions to this, after all there are model aircraft that are capable of carrying 20 lbs of explosive, but they are not considered a threat.
If you read the report they are actually concerned about the use of UAVs as a medium for the release of chemical or biological agents in public spaces. I imagine these would be a lighter payload than conventional explosives.
Considering this is an engineering magazine with what I hope are engineers commenting on articles the lack of imagination is shocking – maybe that is a good thing! As I believe drones can and will be used for purposes that the makers did not intend.
As their routes can be pre-programmed whats to stop a group setting 100 drones off at the same time around a city centre just to disrupt traffic?
I can see the next Battle of Britain happening above our heads – the fighters won’t be humans however…
As Chris Wood says, actual weapons wouldn’t be needed. A quadcopter with a smoke flare, and a loudspeaker telling those below that they are being gassed in the name of goodness knows what, should be enough to cause a Hillsborough type stampede at a football match. Very few of the crowd are just going to stand there analysing the drone’s payload capacity.
There is a big issue with privacy too. Put a high definition camera on board with an image stabilised telephoto lens, and journalists (or anyone else) will be able to invade the privacy of anyone they care to target even without flying them over private land.
As far as the next Battle or Britain is concerned, maybe the Military will need to invest in shotguns!
An engineer’s imagination is grounded in reality. Or should be anyway.
Why use 100 expensive drones to disrupt traffic when you could far more simply and cheaply randomly place 500 traffic cones out one night? Or just spill a crate of carpet tacks?
Of course drones will be used for things the makers didn’t intend – that tends to happen – but the good things we can do with them far out weigh the slim potential of someone being a bit naughty with them.
@Anonymous | 22 Oct 2014 3:01 pm
If you already have access to sufficient chemical or biological agents to cause real harm there are PLENTY of ways to do so.
My point is so far we have generally not seen terrorists with that level of competence, and having a UAV is not going to make a magical difference even if they had. And yes, I have used my imagination, and even discounting the UAV you could easily cause chaos with CBRN material at any major sporting even, concert, demonstration, etc, etc. Useful intelligence about those seeking to acquire and deploy that is FAR more important that commercial restrictions on UAV!
Chris Wood – I’m not an engineer but I have the imagination to question how a fleet of 100 drones could disrupt traffic. Strap a few ounces of semtex to each of them just to stop traffic? If a terrorist were to get hold of that much explosive wouldn’t it be better to enlist a fanatic and send him into a building with the whole lot wired to a switch?
Chemical or biological attacks with, say, anthrax could be accomplished with a guy walking along a street dropping contaminated earth down his trouser leg.
Whilst I might not have the technical ability of an engineer I recognise that not everything needs an engineered approach.
The drones available to the public are nothing more than toys. The likely terrorist candidates have bigger fish to fry. They are under surveillance so buying a drone would simply not make sense.
Cones and carpet tacks are the way forward when I seize control of the country!…….Just kidding GCHQ!
Paul Crawford – far more eloquently put than me.
A few quadcopter drones bobbing up and down at major traffic intersections would be enough to cause some serious congestion. For even more mischief, three or four fixed wing drones flying a GPS guided race track pattern at low altitude up and down the runway at a major aiirport could close it for several hours. The FOD created by trying to shoot it down would cause more problems than the drone itself. Maynard Hill’s TAM 5 flew for nearly 40 hours across the Atlantic. It was GPS guided and only weighed 5kg, so short duration isn’t an issue.
Paul Crawford is right that preventing the legitimate use of drones for leisure or commercial purposes is not going to stop the misuse of drones, as they can be built relatively easily.
One has to think like an anarchist or terrorist, imagine the ways to cause trouble and then take the additional step of creating and testing effective counter-measures; be they hardware, or knowing where to focus one’s intelligence gathering.
Ah thats bit more like it – some heated discussion.
I am not saying that UAVs are bad or cannot be used for good purposes, I’m looking forward to having my first Amazon delivery via drone or being rescued by one when stuck in a desert!
However, these early drones open opportunities up to cleverer than the average terrorists – they can be pre-programmed… Flight times average 20 minutes or so at the moment I believe? That means that no-one has to strap on explosives, no-one has to handle chemicals to deliver them to their target – its all done for them, and they’ve got at least a 20 minute radius head start on the police and authorities even before people know what’s happened. That will only get more and more harder to challenge as battery life and inefficiencies decrease.
classify them as vermin and a 410 takes care of it
Like I said, no self respecting terrorist is going to expose him/herself to the security services by buying a drone simply to disrupt traffic or even an airport. So he/she shuts down Heathrow for several hours, assuming there is no ability to disrupt the drones signal in which case it would probably fly straight back to where it was launched. Even the most basic ones have that ability. Furthermore the commercially available ones have a limited reception range as they are restricted to flying within line of sight, by law. Once outside that range they simply fly back and land within feet of where they were launched.
Using drones for terrorist activities is impractical and makes no sense for the terrorist as they merely confirm their existence for little gain.
Robin – “A few quadcopter drones bobbing up and down at major traffic intersections”.
Seriously……..no one would notice them, drivers barely take their eyes off the car in front never mind see a tiny drone ahead. Even if they did, unless it was dripping with armaments we British would probably all just drive by and politely ignore it. 🙂
David, we are evidently thinking of different quadcopters. Try googling ‘big quadcopter’.
With regard to limited range, a second UAV at altitude acting as repeater station is simple method for increasing range. That’s assuming it needs control. If it is autonomous and following a GPS course, then unless the GPS signal itself is jammed, you can’t jam it.
The whole point with quadcopters is that the clever bits are largely independent of the size of the vehicle. The control laws are likely to be much the same regardless whether the Drone is six inches or six metres across. Just source bigger motors, props, batteries and speed controllers as the airframe gets larger.
To be honest, the main nefarious activity for which I would expect UAVs to be used is smuggling.
I fly ‘drones’ as a hobby and there are two things that really blow my bagpipes: The fact people call them drones and all the negative press they are sudenly getting.
This technology has been around for quite a while now and how many REAL situations have we had? All Ive ever seen on TV is idiotic, inconsiderate people with quadcopters. I seriously cant believe that its the availabilty of such products that has made them this way. Oh, and a load of paranoid Americans worried about their privacy. Erm….hang on a moment….havnt Google already done that?