The thought of terrorists using drones haunts security officials in Europe and elsewhere. The Dutch are training hunting birds like the eagle to help combat the security threats posed by the proliferation of off-the-shelf drones — unmanned aerial vehicles — of the type that can pose risks to aircraft. The fear is that these drones could be used to drop contraband into jails, conduct surveillance or fly dangerously over public events.
Mark Wiebes, a detective chief superintendent in the Dutch police, described the tests, conducted at an abandoned Dutch airfield, as “very promising,” and said that, subject to a final assessment, birds of prey were likely to be deployed soon in the Netherlands, along with other measures to counter drones. The Metropolitan Police Service in London is also considering using trained birds to fight drones.
This has been described as a “a low-tech solution for a high-tech problem” but, on the contrary, what it highlights is the fact that in terms of maneuverability, the flying skills of an eagle (and most other flying creatures) are vastly superior to any form of technology. In this, as in so many other instances, technology crudely imitates nature. (based on a New York Times article, May 2016 )
New technology is often developed because it can be developed, whether it benefits or complicates the lives of others or not. We know about the CIA killer drones, and these alone provoke some moral and ethical questions about the killing the innocent bystanders. But ordinary commercial drones are surely an accident waiting to happen, especially if they are used near airports.
Amazon is experimenting with deliveries by drone. Drones cannot ring the front door bell to announce a parcel delivered (can they?). Where I live parcels left by the front door get stolen (some of them), and you don’t need many thefts and replacements before the initial cheapness and speed of drone delivery is overwhelmed by the dead cost of replacement. Do you suppose people think these problems through? But it is use by terrorists that is the real threat.
This is a particular issue in the United States, where Republicans may argue that armed drones are a right of a citizen under the Second Amendment. After all, if you have the right to defend yourself with a gun, why not with a gun operated remotely? At the very least, security drones may become more common at high profile events. As long as drones are available for commercial purchase, someone may use them to kill people by flying into them, even if the drones themselves are unarmed.
Having that said, I’m sure people were having the same debate when cars were first introduced. People worried about safety, not just from accidents, but drive by shooting and cars ramming into people like we saw with a truck in Berlin. Concerns about safety and national security, while are certainly legitimate, should not be used to impede progress. Today, cars and trucks kill thousands each year, but we have realised that their benefits outweigh the possibility of those deaths. Because drones do not operate at street level, I would argue that their potential threat is less than that of a car or truck, unless they were armed (armed drones should be illegal for civilian purchase.) I’m sure there are ways around the difficulty of using them near airports, or having drone delivered goods stolen. I’m glad you’ve raised these issues, but drones have the potential for good as well as harm.