Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Ok, I’d generally had the understanding that terrorism covered actions by non-uniformed combatants and those acting outside state control or periods of declared war. It didn’t have to explicitly be only actions killing people. Things like blowing up bridges, destroying various infrastructure would be counts as acts of terrorism even if no one is killed by them.

You're perfectly correct.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
'Cause, you know, there are preventative laws on the books that can make acquiring a truck, which can cause lots of damage in unqualiied/malicious hands, pretty hard.

Weird, huh?

The only thing that is weird is that you think the laws preventing you from renting or stealing a truck so you can murder people is what stops truck-based murder. Perhaps murdering people should also be outlawed.

 Ouze wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
'Cause, you know, there are preventative laws on the books that can make acquiring a truck, which can cause lots of damage in unqualiied/malicious hands, pretty hard.

Weird, huh?

The only thing that is weird is that you think the laws preventing you from renting or stealing a truck so you can murder people is what stops truck-based murder. Perhaps murdering people should also be outlawed.

That's a strawman that's in direct opposition to my explicit statements.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I'm pointing out all the other parts of assembling and detonating a truck-bomb that you're just ignoring for convenience.

Those parts apply the same to a drone bomb.

'Cause, you know, there are preventative laws on the books that can make acquiring a truck, which can cause lots of damage in unqualiied/malicious hands, pretty hard.

Pretty hard? You mean like "go to the U-Haul store, give them your credit card and driver's license, and drive off with a truck"? A process that anyone with a valid license (AKA virtually everyone) and enough money in the bank that their card isn't declined can do in maybe 15 minutes?

Your definition of terrorism is also completely wrong. Terrorism is a specified act carried out for an ideological purpose. Not all offences can be terrorism, regardless of the intent, and an act can be terrorism without having a political intent.

Uh, no, that is not at all correct. Political intent is the entire point of terrorism! It's why killing someone for a cause can be labeled terrorism, but killing someone to steal their wallet or because you caught them in bed with your spouse is not.

Which part of assembling an IED-drone requires you to present a card issued by a financial institution and a government-accredited piece of identification that certifies you're competent to use a drone?

No part.

I can get a drone right now. I can't hire a truck. But do continue to rely on and simultaneously ignore these facts at your convenience.

Read s.1(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

You're wrong and the very first subsection of the very first section of the on-point legislation says, unequivocally, that you're wrong.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Ok, I’d generally had the understanding that terrorism covered actions by non-uniformed combatants and those acting outside state control or periods of declared war. It didn’t have to explicitly be only actions killing people. Things like blowing up bridges, destroying various infrastructure would be counts as acts of terrorism even if no one is killed by them.

They would be counted even if nobody is killed purely by coincidence, but that's not what is happening here. It's an act of violence that is likely to kill people, and results in significant direct destruction of property. This drone incident is much more like a temporary roadblock. Nobody is killed, no significant property is destroyed, and the only damage is the inconvenience of not being able to use the airport for a while.

But if I’m mistaken I’m happy to call it something else, I’ve already suggested that it amounts to a fifth column, particularly if sponsored by another state. I’d hardly call what these drones are doing to the airport a “random inconvenience” though in much the same way that pointing lasers into plane cockpits isn’t. Another issue that’s occurred in recent years. I’m not claiming that anything like blocking a road is “terrorism”, but persistently threatening the safety of aircraft is rather quite a bit closer.

It's not a meaningful threat. Even a direct hit (something extremely difficult to do) is unlikely to do anything, commercial aircraft are required by law to be capable of flying just fine on one engine and a drone lacks the mass to be capable of doing much damage to any other part of the plane. The threat from lasers is much higher, including potential injury to the pilots even if the plane is not harmed. Shutting down the airport is a policy that even small risks are not acceptable in commercial aviation, not an acknowledgement of a major threat.

 Peregrine wrote:

Pretty hard? You mean like "go to the U-Haul store, give them your credit card and driver's license, and drive off with a truck"? A process that anyone with a valid license (AKA virtually everyone) and enough money in the bank that their card isn't declined can do in maybe 15 minutes?

Stop misleading people! We all know you need valid proof of insurance too.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Which part of assembling an IED-drone requires you to present a card issued by a financial institution and a government-accredited piece of identification that certifies you're competent to use a drone?

If you can't even get a basic driver's license and a credit/debit card with $100 (or an accomplice with those things) then how exactly are you getting a drone?

I can't hire a truck.

Really? Which of those two things do you lack? I find it hard to believe that a functioning adult in 2018 isn't going to have them. Or does Canada have much stricter laws than the US?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Which part of assembling an IED-drone requires you to present a card issued by a financial institution and a government-accredited piece of identification that certifies you're competent to use a drone?

If you can't even get a basic driver's license and a credit/debit card with $100 (or an accomplice with those things) then how exactly are you getting a drone?

I can't hire a truck.

Really? Which of those two things do you lack? I find it hard to believe that a functioning adult in 2018 isn't going to have them. Or does Canada have much stricter laws than the US?

Ebay. Kijiji. Classified ads. Any one of a million other ways you can order online without a credit card or ID.

I have neither a credit card nor a driving license. I choose the first, the second was inflicted upon me.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Ebay. Kijiji. Classified ads. Any one of a million other ways you can order online without a credit card or ID.

How exactly do you pay for something on ebay without a credit/debit card?

I have neither a credit card nor a driving license. I choose the first, the second was inflicted upon me.

Honest question: how do you function in 2018?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Ebay. Kijiji. Classified ads. Any one of a million other ways you can order online without a credit card or ID.

How exactly do you pay for something on ebay without a credit/debit card?

I have neither a credit card nor a driving license. I choose the first, the second was inflicted upon me.

Honest question: how do you function in 2018?

You can't hire a truck with a debit card in the U.K., it has to be a credit card.

I do fine, thanks. Better than your arguments are doing, at any rate.

Excommunicatus you do realise that the general argument is talking in general terms not about how you can't build an IED or whatever.

In general most people can get access to vehicles of many kinds. Even large lorries and tractors if you go on the right course to get the training - and the only thing needed there is a fee.

The only difficulty comes is that the larger, typically the more ID you need to present at various stages so you generate a paper trail.

If you don't care about the paper trial aspect then you've no worries about it. Otherwise you can easily get hold of a lot of second hand vehicles with little ID requirements. Heck you can pick up scrap and repair it to a basic functional level if you want.
+






As for living without a car; if someone is in the Urban landscape that's very possible. Heck I know people in London who have never driven and are in their 30-40s. In that landscape you can rely on functional and affordable public transport. Granted you're a bit limited going travelling; but you can still do it. It's in smaller urban areas, towns and villages and the countryside where a lack of car is crippling to getting around.

 Overread wrote:
In general most people can get access to vehicles of many kinds. Even large lorries and tractors if you go on the right course to get the training - and the only thing needed there is a fee.

The only difficulty comes is that the larger, typically the more ID you need to present at various stages so you generate a paper trail.

If you don't care about the paper trial aspect then you've no worries about it. Otherwise you can easily get hold of a lot of second hand vehicles with little ID requirements. Heck you can pick up scrap and repair it to a basic functional level if you want.

Exactly. The existence of an occasional person who can't get a truck doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people can get one with very little effort. They aren't hard to get at all, the only requirements (credit card and driver's license) are effectively basic life requirements and an incredibly low bar to cross. Having to spend 5 minutes taking a driving test to get a license is not going to deter someone who is determined to commit mass murder, nor is having to get a credit card that banks are eagerly throwing at anyone capable of signing the application form.

If you have enough money to buy a drone, you have enough money to buy a clunker off of craigslist without any ID or paperwork whatsoever.

Again, the point is not elimination. The point is prevention, to make it harder to attempt these things, and to assist in investigation and prosecution after the fact.

I have literally no idea how to construct an IED and no interest in learning, so it forms no part of my argument.

My argument is, stripped to its core, that licensing and/or registration schemes exist to mitigate harm and demonstrably do mitigate harm, therefore I see no reason why similar schemes shouldn't apply to drones which also have potential to cause (massive) harm.

No, you're not going to stop somebody who is determined and doesn't care about the consequences but again, laws about offences against the person don't stop offences against the person, but nobody seriously suggests that means we shouldn't have laws criminalizing offences against the person.

So why is that 'logic' applicable here?

The argument against basically boils down to 'but muh freedom' while ignoring all the other licensing and registration schemes you already deal with.

I'd happily stand in my post office queue for thirty minutes to get a license for my drone if I thought it might prevent a terrorist atrocity. Apparently the time of others is worth potential vast loss of life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Overread wrote:
In general most people can get access to vehicles of many kinds. Even large lorries and tractors if you go on the right course to get the training - and the only thing needed there is a fee.

The only difficulty comes is that the larger, typically the more ID you need to present at various stages so you generate a paper trail.

If you don't care about the paper trial aspect then you've no worries about it. Otherwise you can easily get hold of a lot of second hand vehicles with little ID requirements. Heck you can pick up scrap and repair it to a basic functional level if you want.

Exactly. The existence of an occasional person who can't get a truck doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people can get one with very little effort. They aren't hard to get at all, the only requirements (credit card and driver's license) are effectively basic life requirements and an incredibly low bar to cross. Having to spend 5 minutes taking a driving test to get a license is not going to deter someone who is determined to commit mass murder, nor is having to get a credit card that banks are eagerly throwing at anyone capable of signing the application form.

So you've moved on to pretending that people who commit terrorism all have their finances and IDs in order. Cool.

I live on the fringes of society and, even if I wanted to, could not acquire a credit card precisely because of my radical views.

But yeah, Barclays is throwing credit cards at jihadis and Irish nationalists.

The only way your standing in line at the post office to license your drone is going to prevent a terrorist atrocity is if you yourself would have been committing it otherwise. People drive unregistered, uninsured cars without drivers licenses all the time without terroristic intentions. Also, in the U.S. you are required to register your drone with the FAA already. Still wouldn't stop someone from simply not doing that and using it to cause mayhem if they wanted to.

I live on the fringes of society and, even if I wanted to, could not acquire a credit card precisely because of my radical views.

People get turned down for credit cards pretty much only because they have bad credit, not because of their ‘views’. How would a bank even know?

And yet driving license schemes make our roads much safer than they otherwise would be, regardless of the fact that they're not perfect.

Sooner or later y'all are going to have to stop simply ignoring that inconvenient point.

Laws that are not 100% effective are not without use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I live on the fringes of society and, even if I wanted to, could not acquire a credit card precisely because of my radical views.

People get turned down for credit cards pretty much only because they have bad credit, not because of their ‘views’. How would a bank even know?

Also because of no credit history.

They wouldn't. I have simplified the process because the intricacies of my life are none of anyone else's business.

You can get a credit card even without a credit history because everyone has to start somewhere, it would be limited in size and the interest higher, but you’re not unable to acquire one, you choose not to.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
And yet driving license schemes make our roads much safer than they otherwise would be, regardless of the fact that they're not perfect.

Sooner or later y'all are going to have to stop simply ignoring that inconvenient point. .

I'm not sure how good that analogy is. People get permits and license their cars because they are generally very expensive - the second most expensive thing they probably own next to their house - physically large, and operating one without any proficiency could easily kill them.

None of these things are going to apply to consumer drones. Passing laws to require registering them, passing laws to force proficiency, etc, are all totally meaningless since it's already unlawful to fly over an airport now and someone is doing it. Under your current legal regime, with no additional legislation, this is already a incredibly rare, unprecedented event. Do you really need new laws to prevent this thing which is already totally illegal and has only happened once? Would they work?

I'm not in the "since criminals break laws, no point in having any" camp; but there is a distinction to be made between passing meaningful legislation that has some level of efficacy, and passing legislation so you can be seen Doing Something About It.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Ok, I’d generally had the understanding that terrorism covered actions by non-uniformed combatants and those acting outside state control or periods of declared war. It didn’t have to explicitly be only actions killing people. Things like blowing up bridges, destroying various infrastructure would be counts as acts of terrorism even if no one is killed by them.

But if I’m mistaken I’m happy to call it something else, I’ve already suggested that it amounts to a fifth column, particularly if sponsored by another state. I’d hardly call what these drones are doing to the airport a “random inconvenience” though in much the same way that pointing lasers into plane cockpits isn’t. Another issue that’s occurred in recent years. I’m not claiming that anything like blocking a road is “terrorism”, but persistently threatening the safety of aircraft is rather quite a bit closer.

Terrorism is violence specifically aimed at civilians. If violence is aimed at military personnel it would be an insurrection. If there is no aim to cause casualties but just to cause property/economical damage, then the correct term is sabotage. Of course, in reality the boundaries between sabotage, terrorism and insurrection can be vague.

And of course, plenty of people throw the term "terrorism" around at everything they disagree with, so it has kinda become a meaningless buzzword.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.

I'd love to know where you got that idea from.

I'm going to guess it's informed almost entirely by that time Churchill tried to "slap" a D-notice on The Mirror. Even though that failed, it's the most famous example of a D-notice.

Maybe Profumo.

Also, FWIW, while they're generally respected, a D-notice is not legally enforceable.

I've seen English movies where some official says "D notice situation" and the media is forced not to report on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

 filbert wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I think drones will be targeted for more control due to their ability to make public statements that those in power donct like. I understsnd in Britain anything the government doesn't want said gets a D notice stuck on it and that's that's it, it can't be discussed or else.

A drone with a loudspeaker could blare it out over a crowded area for some time, or carry a banner making an unapproved statement, of even use a laser projector to project a forbidden message on a building.

A drone can be used to make a public act of defiance and as such they'll be regulated by those in power before chainsaws which can only kill or injure a few peolle at most, so the state doesn't care.

What on earth are you banging on about? I don't know where you get your info from but you are severely misinformed.

So you deny the D notice exists?

It's an entirely voluntary system applying only to major media outlets. Though people can face prosecution for broadcasting certain statements after the fact, no one in the UK is prevented from making 'unapproved statements'. Even on the state channels.

Does england have anything like our No fly list? If so he may be on it possibly wrongly and as such is retaliating against what he sees as his persecution. Again I don't know if england has a no fly list. If it does i'm sure British police are investigating peolle on it.

Or maybe he was a fired worker at the airport with a grudge. Again I donct doubt authorities are looking at that.

But I think he bad a grudge against air travel or this airport. If he wanted mass panic the red powder idea that anyone smart enough to pull this off would have thought of would be a better option and more likely to produce some casualties as people fled in utter terror.

The UK does have a no fly list but I don't think it likely that it's a protest against it. Most likely seems, to me, to be an environmental protest. We have a years long ongoing dispute about the expansion of airports in London.

Now look, I saw video of a women being surrounded and arrested by English coos for standing in public and quietly reading out loud a list of British soldiers killed in Iraq, because itcs illegal to list British dead in military actions apparently because it's "bad for morale". So don't tell me Britain doesn't have censorship.

So out of curiosity, do the police not have one shotgun between them to quickly shoot the thing down? Rifles of course being unsuitable for that kind of thing.

The effective range of a shotgun is nowhere near far enough to hit it to any meaningful effect from the ground, and to do it from the air probably requires 3 days worth of filling out risk assessment paperwork, after at least a week to write the risk assessment paperwork for them to fill out in the first instance.

A rifle would be a better prospect, unless they're deliberately flying in an evasive patterns, which nine of the footage I've seen suggests. Then again, I've seen guys reliably hit clay pigeons with .22s, so it might still be plausible.

News says they’ve made arrests.

So, as an american I want to ask my British comrades, could this end up being what I believe the British call "hooliganism"? I've heard that phrase tossed around in European matters, like soccer hooligans.

The police have arrested two suspects.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I've seen English movies where some official says "D notice situation" and the media is forced not to report on it.

Because, as we know, movies are definitely a reliable source of information and would never present an inaccurate use of a law because it makes a better story.

Now look, I saw video of a women being surrounded and arrested by English coos for standing in public and quietly reading out loud a list of British soldiers killed in Iraq, because itcs illegal to list British dead in military actions apparently because it's "bad for morale". So don't tell me Britain doesn't have censorship.

{citation needed}

Can you provide a credible source for this? A quick search turns up nothing at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
A rifle would be a better prospect, unless they're deliberately flying in an evasive patterns, which nine of the footage I've seen suggests. Then again, I've seen guys reliably hit clay pigeons with .22s, so it might still be plausible.

Oh god no, a rifle would be terrible for this kind of thing. Any shot that misses is going to come down miles away with lethal force. Shooting at an air target with a rifle would be extreme irresponsibility.

Oh look, another thing you're an expert on.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
And yet driving license schemes make our roads much safer than they otherwise would be, regardless of the fact that they're not perfect.

That's not the point. Driver's licenses aren't intended to prevent people from maliciously using cars to kill people, they're intended to keep untrained law-abiding drivers off the road. They work because most people aren't trying to kill someone with a car, if the state won't let them drive until they have a bit of training and pass a test they're not going to drive. For someone who wants to kill people with a car the license does absolutely nothing to stop them. Virtually anyone can pass the test, so anyone with malicious intent is just going to get a license and then go do the awful thing.

The equivalent to a driver's license is the existing geofencing in drones. The average law-abiding person who isn't intending to hurt anyone is already unable to fly near airports, adding another law on the subject isn't going to accomplish anything. It's just passing a law so that you can be seen Doing Something About It.

Also because of no credit history.

Introductory credit cards exist. Seriously, have you not seen banks trying to give high-rate credit cards to every college student dumb enough to sign up for one in exchange for a free t-shirt? You're going to pay a higher rate than you would with a better credit history, but I seriously doubt that "renting your murder weapon is going to cost you $5 extra in a few months" is going to do anything to slow down someone who wants to get a truck to kill people.

They wouldn't. I have simplified the process because the intricacies of my life are none of anyone else's business.

First of all, I seriously doubt you're right about this. But even if you're somehow the incredibly rare exception and unable to get a credit card of any kind that is not true of the vast majority of people. There is no reason to believe that the potential mass murder is in the 0.000001% of the population that is unable to accomplish something as easy and basic as renting a moving truck, buying a junk car off the internet, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oh look, another thing you're an expert on.

Basic physics? Yeah, I am. Shooting rifles without a solid backstop is a well-known hazard that every responsible rifle owner knows about. You do not do it because, unlike a shotgun pellet, a rifle bullet is capable of being lethal miles away if there's nothing to stop it.