DRONES Camera technology has become smaller and much more capable, flight times have been extended as the hunger for mobile phone technology drives the development of Lithium Ion Polymer batteries. Of course, availability and affordability of unmanned technology is a major factor. For £1,000 you can now purchase a drone that can sense and avoid, fly autonomously, maintain flight for 28 minutes, gather TV qualify imagery and reach extended ranges of 5km. All of this whilst deploying from a case that is no more than a small handbag and is so non-descript that any discerning security officer would be forgiven for missing or dismissing its presence. In the security context such a small drone is covert prior to flight and due to the small size remains so when airborne, not least as few people spend their day looking skyward for threats to their well-being. All of these developments further the vulnerabilities of those wishing to protect people, infrastructure and reputation. WOULD REGULATION HELP BALANCE THESE VULNERABILITIES? The Air Navigation Order regulates small unmanned aircraft in the 3Dimensional world of airspace and that order was recently amended to further increase the distances that drones should be flown from airport boundaries and limiting heights to 400ft. From a public perspective that is a good move and indeed for those security officers guarding our airports they know that nothing else should be flown within their working boundaries. Of course, that assumes they can see them and that they are aware of these new regulations (or indeed the operator is adhering to these regulations). Therefore, there is another important factor and that is education, informing the security industry of capability and regulation both effecting threat profiles. Therefore, if the technical capability is high and the profile low, making detection very difficult, technology must have a large role in identifying, tracking and countering unwanted drone flight. However, this technology comes at considerable cost and budgets are not widely allocated for counter drone equipment. Some of this equipment has been proven on the battlefields of Northern Iraq where the final assaults on ISIS strongholds were delayed due to the use of unmanned aircraft. Despite the expense there is another area that hinders this development and that is the credibility of some companies making wild claims about their technical ability. This is a common problem throughout the wider drone industry anyway. Any potential counter drone capability has to be considered carefully, perhaps utilising link budget analysis to make sure the threat really is mitigated. By the virtue that drones are now so advanced and operated by firmware
IN EUROPE, THE FOCUS MUST REMAIN ON THE EFFECTIVE IDENTIFICATION OF DRONE INCURSIONS AND THE DELIVERY OF LEGISLATION TO PROTECT SITES AT RISK that controls their positioning perhaps more work should be done around the use of embedded identification from IP data streams. Equally the purchasing process could have a wider role in regulating the ownership and intent of people buying unmanned aircraft. Up until the development of widely available unmanned aircraft the threat posed by the aviation industry was mitigated post 9/11 with the many security measures put in place. Currently we remain at an unknown position where drones could be the next threat from above. Of course, the corresponding development of drone capabilities is also advancing efficiencies in police and emergency service operations. Saving lives, reducing helicopter operating costs, creating new dimensions to crime scene investigation to name a few. Therefore, whilst regulation has limited effect when countering drones many efficiencies are being gained by security services operating them. COUNTERING DRONES The civilian market is moving closer to implementation of technology to detect, identify and neutralise malicious drone activity. However major regulatory hurdles remain before we can see the employment of drone neutralising technology. Law enforcement agencies, prisons, stadia and other facilities should celebrate the current trajectory of drone regulation, which appears to be prioritising safety and enforcement. The threat to civilian life is diverse; in the Middle East drones have become a common terrorist tool, requiring law
enforcement and militaries to adopt counter measure with immediate effect. In Europe, the focus must remain on the effective identification of drone incursions and the delivery of legislation to protect sites at risk. Taking place on 11-13 December at London’s Hilton, Canary Wharf, Countering Drones will provide a unique platform where security professions can share their challenges with governments, regulators and industry, to assist in developing a lens for threat assessment and a framework for progression. Key questions the Countering Drones conference will answer include: What are the recent developments in drone and counter drone technology and how is this technology impacting the security of key commercial and civil facilities?; what are the pros and cons of different counter-drone systems and which nations or sectors are currently employing or planning to employ such systems?; how vulnerable is critical national infrastructure to attacks by civilian drones? What are the current safeguards to protect against this and how can we measure this risk?; what kind of counter-drone solutions should commercial organisations employ, if any, and what might be the legal implications of their use?; and how does industry plan to solve these challenges for government and commercial industry – from detection to disruption? L
FURTHER INFORMATION
counteringdrones.iqpc.co.uk
ISSUE 36 | COUNTER TERROR BUSINESS MAGAZINE
61