Originally Posted by
rcsa
'The bureaucrats' don't think regulation and legislation will stop people with malevolent intent. Legislation will, however, make it harder to implement that intent; will reduce (over time) the availability of the hardware to those with ill-intent; and will provide law enforcement and the judiciary with a robust legal framework to prosecute those who abuse the technology.
In other words, the same sensible legal framework that demands responsible ownership and use of any other potentially dangerous technology - like guns, cars and aircraft.
I'm sure that, behind the bluster, you understand the underlying principle that the more potential your behavior has to harm others, the more responsibility you have to behave intelligently.
Legislation takes time to catch up with technology and to fully understand the risk. When hobby UAVs were seen as 'just fun toys' there was no need for legislative control. Ten years on, the law needs to reflect widespread public fears that a hobby UAV could bring down an airliner. If these fears are unfounded, the law will never be used, and in time will drop off the statute book.
If _you_ wanted to be malevolent with a UAS it may increase the work factor to have legislation changing the software and hardware of the sold UAS. The same for the bureaucrats and politicians who are daily amazed by the cellular telephones. However, for the average hobbyist in both model aircraft and software using different frequencies and streamed video to control their UAS is as simple as rooting their iPhones. Let the security services jam WiFi and GPS around an airport and guess who is going to have problems.
While I understand the intent - the cures being proposed need to be altogether better thought out by
experts in all the areas affected or the cures could be worse than the disease.