Commercially available unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), popularly known as drones, appear to be changing the game in regards to aviation. The market for drones has been expanding rapidly, the applications of drones are growing more diverse, and the cost of the machines themselves is dropping. There are plans to try and use drones to revolutionize everything from shipping to border control, and the trend towards greater use of UAVs shows no sign of slowing. However, the growing number of UAVs flying in American airspace is beginning to create a problem for law enforcement and security organizations, due to concerns about drones being used as weapons.
As UAV technology has become more ubiquitous, the fear of drones being used for nefarious purposes has grown as well. For example, it would not be inordinately difficult to strap explosives to a commercial UAV and convert it into a flying bomb. Given that a UAV was able to land on the White House lawn in January 2015, the potential damage that could result from such an attack is a serious national security concern. Additionally, there are fears that drones could be used to intentionally cause passenger planes to crash by flying into their engines. As a result, the growing number of UAVs seen loitering near airports is a persistent cause for concern.
Such fears have given rise to a number of systems meant to counter-UAVs, but these systems are not without their own downsides. Dr. Robert Griffin, Deputy Undersecretary for Science and Technology at the Department of Homeland Security, told The Cipher Brief that, “when you consider the possible consequences of the use of countermeasures in and around critical infrastructure including mass gatherings like sporting events, concerts, or civic events there are considerable technological, legal, and policy challenges.”
This can clearly be seen in the trade-offs that are intrinsic to each type of anti-UAV technology. The most basic type of anti-UAV system simply shoots them out of the sky. While this is both direct and efficient, the falling drone can be a hazard depending on where it crashes.
Other systems use radio frequency (RF) jamming technology to disable or seize control of the UAV’s control systems. This capability removes the danger of a falling drone, but that type of jamming technology is legally problematic and can interfere with important civilian technologies – such as medical implants.
By far the most novel approach to disabling UAVs involves training birds of prey to attack them, but this can sometimes harm the birds. These represent just a sample of the systems currently being developed to disable drones, and the anti-UAV industry is likely to be just as robust as the UAV industry itself.
Part of the problem with anti-UAV technology is that those legal and regulatory challenges are proving to be both complex and enduring. Tyler Black and Sean McGowan, of Thompson Coburn LLP, described both UAVs and anti-UAV technology as being in the middle of the “fascinating nexus between aircraft safety and communications regulations, civil tort law, local ordinances, and criminal laws.” The inconsistent patchwork of laws and regulations, which can vary from state to state, has created an environment that is difficult to understand, and even more difficult to navigate. Additionally, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the technology is changing faster than the law. And the commercial interest in UAVs is likely to continue to promote innovation and rapid change for the foreseeable future.
Drones are not weapons in and of themselves. As Griffin said, “UAVs are not a threat any more than a car, plane or cell phone camera.” Like most technologies, the nature of the UAV threat is entirely dependent upon the people using them. The UAV genie cannot be put back into the bottle, so law enforcement and regulatory agencies will need to learn to adjust to the reality of their existence more nimbly than has been the case thus far.
Luke Penn-Hall is the Cyber and Technology Producer with The Cipher Brief.
