Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#71

Post by knorker »

user5994461 wrote: post #37
knorker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. That would be like burning a zero-day exploit. I think the airports have been absolutely asleep at the wheel because OF COURSE this was a risk. OF COURSE I would have set up TDoA equipment and had a company with anti-drone tech on speed dial (at the very least) if I were responsible for an airport bigger than a hobbyist field. I bet you could get cover for Gatwick with TDoA equipment for less than $10k ea…

No company in their right mind would sell anything like that for less than $10k. Try £100+ as a starting price for one unit. It's aerospace and defense equipment and the airport is losing a truckload of money. One of the article was giving a £16M figure for a 6 pack of the Israel Dome system.

I'll admit to not knowing what CAA rules a receive-only system would need, but this is not knowledge that is that specialized.

I'm saying the hardware is yes about $10k for sufficient coverage, COTS, and maybe you're right that a proven company would charge 100k and up. But you could hire someone competent for $300k/y to just implement it, and then deploy everywhere. (300k would get you someone competent enough)

But yes of course with aerospace certification needed it's... bad

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#72

Post by dang »

setquk wrote: post #69
dang wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please keep nationalistic or ethnic or whatever-this-is slurs off HN. We're trying for better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My apologies to the readers of HN. I will bear this in mind in future.

Appreciated!

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#73

Post by cosmojg »

ajb257 wrote: post #5
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #2

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 ) and sorting through all the lovely messages they've received over the last day or so.

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…

>Whoever caused the Gatwick chaos needs to be brought to justice

Absolutely, along with all of these clowns who are perpetuating the chaos.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#74

Post by vertexFarm »

dbdjfjrjvebd wrote: post #56
DanBC wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. The press always say that naming people who've been arrested is an important measure against authoritarian regimes. It allows the public to know whether police powers of arrest are being misused or not. They appear to have lost this argument, because this is in tension with people's right to privacy…

There is a simple way to have both. Give people the right to anonymity and also give them personally the right to wave that right. This protects people both ways.

This plan isn't thought through to its conclusion. If a government is willing to illegally detail political dissidents, etc. they will certainly not mind lying about that dissident's decision for anonymity.

Not like the KGB of old would tell a reporter the truth when they ask if the nameless detained man in a gulag somewhere requested his name be reported and let them blow open the fact that the government is arresting non-criminals for political purposes. I mean in that situation, Soviets already knew--it's not a perfect analogy. They'll just say he exercised his right to privacy.

It only works if the announcement of identity is public by default, unfortunately. Neither option is great at all, but I don't think I'm qualified to come up with a better plan.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#75

Post by ngngngng »

CydeWeys wrote: post #13
jstanley wrote: post #4

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?

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

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.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#76

Post by RpFLCL »

dTal wrote: post #50

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…

With the lack of evidence, the media attention, and the nature of the incident, I have been wondering the same thing.

The cynic in me suspects that the result of this will be zero convictions, but legislation taking all but the smallest drones out of consumers hands.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#77

Post by closeparen »

Carpetsmoker wrote: post #9
ajb257 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would argue that publishing the names at all isn't particularly news-worthy. The right to privacy exists, too. In the justice system it's the judge which rules a sentence. Years – or even decades – of public shaming doesn't seem fair to me. Committing a crime doesn't mean you're no longer dealing with a person with real feelings. Publishing names and photos strikes me as "2 minutes of hate", and not "news". Also no…

The facts entering public record are what distinguishes "arrested" from "disappeared."

Do you want to live in a world where people are yanked off the street and not heard of for months or years, with no ability for the press/friends/family to find out about the situation, "out of respect for their privacy?"

If the police refuse to disclose whether they've grabbed someone, I'm going to assume I'm in Soviet Russia.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#78

Post by jacquesm »

starbeast wrote: post #18
Carpetsmoker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that publishing the names at all isn't particularly news-worthy. The right to privacy exists, too. In the justice system it's the judge which rules a sentence. Years – or even decades – of public shaming doesn't seem fair to me. Committing a crime doesn't mean you're no longer dealing with a person with real feelings. Publishing names and photos strikes me as "2 minutes of hate", and not "news". Also no…

Even just being in a crime reconstruction video as an actor is apparently risky. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-342183...

That's one very effective way to get people to no longer want to act in reconstruction videos.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#79

Post by 1337biz »

malka wrote: post #15
jstanley wrote: post #4

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?

It could have been done for the sake of lulz

Is there already word from the land of lulz? I bet they are celebrating the situation no matter if there is any relation.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#80

Post by YawningAngel »

gruez wrote: post #65
dbdjfjrjvebd wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a simple way to have both. Give people the right to anonymity and also give them personally the right to wave that right. This protects people both ways.

>This protects people both ways. Not really. If the cops want to drag you off and detain you secretly for indefinite amount of time (what the law is trying to prevent), then all they have to do is charge you with some embarrassing crime like "sex with underage minor", to force you to waive that right.

This doesn't work in systems which punish trumped-up charges, which any reasonable system clearly should.
Post reply on HN