I was closely associated with the military complex and as such was generally aware of events that occurred within my area of endeavor. It was disturbing to learn of a UAV over flying of a landing passenger airliner. If true the event would add another layer of argument in support of those seeking to take control of activities they personally object to.
As for a "tracking system", that's exactly what governments and some manufacturers want. Such would do little to protect the public, more on that in a moment, but it would provide another avenue for governments to collect revenue for licenses, registration, and user services. This is especially true in the EU and UK where exorbitant fees are charged for every aspect of aviation services, even when such services were not provided. An attempt to incorporate similar (privatization of the air traffic control system) is now being made here in the U.S. At least one manufacturer would generate an enormous amount of revenue if their "drone tracking" features were adopted by governments, forcing other makers to pay licensing fees for each and every one of their models to the company that developed the software. Such a program would also serve as a means for government to affect more control over the general population, something they lust for to assure the ruling elite can maintain their positions of privilege and power. We should also remember that a large segment of manned aviation, at least in the U.S., has no tracking requirements and their capacity for destruction is orders of magnitude greater than a small multirotor.
Any device or vehicle can be altered in a manner that would permit use for nefarious or destructive purposes. Radio control cars were long ago used as a platform of destruction, and our governments made it a point to weaponize drones for destructive use with no public oversight. We've all seen what can be done with an automobile, truck, or suitcase and no amount of regulation has prevented their adaptation for destructive application. Even the corpses of "road kill" animals have been used for destructive purposes. Since intelligent people are resourceful and creative they have always found a way to get around hardware and software limitations. Those with the skills, and there are many, can build what they want and use components that lack restrictions, unless such components are blocked from public access. To do that would require that Chinese industry be prevented from distributing their products to the world. Without mentioning the aspect of smuggling, the chance of that happening is virtually nil as China holds so much of the world's debt that governments fear doing anything that might deter the Chinese government from lending more money in the form of debt acquisition. It has been well established that almost nobody can force Chinese accountability.
Where all have failed is in education. The rules for safe operation of aircraft have been in place for ~80 years yet manufacturers have been permitted to market 'toys" that have the ability to seriously disrupt the operation of manned aviation without any requirement for buyers to understand applicable laws and regulations. We have allowed the generation of corporate profit through toy sales to take priority over public safety. There has been ample time for regulation and program development requiring those wishing to purchase an automated aircraft to become aware of airspace regulations and safe operating practices. Simple testing would establish a user understands well enough to be allowed to purchase, own, and operate. There has also been a lack of enforcement action strong enough to make people understand the cost of irresponsibility. Far too few have been vigorously prosecuted for actions that jeopardized the public. There are no qualifiers to buying and flying a semi-autonomous drone, and we should note none of this was an issue until model aircraft autopilots were made small and cheap enough to become affordable by the general public. There is also a need to create a certification standard that assures systems have the reliability to remain under the control of the user at all times. Education and training are, IMHO, the means that would best limit the number of accidental and errant events that are of concern to manned aviation. We can't eliminate threat, but it can be reduced if people understand their responsibility before they take possession of an sUAS.
Those with the intent to cause harm will always find a way to make their attempt. I do not believe it's possible to prevent violence and mayhem without first controlling the mental state of the world population. In a way I can see where attempts to do exactly that through social engineering have generated the problems those efforts were intended to eliminate. There are many other factors that have evolved over time that contribute to issues with undesirable social interaction but lack of public interest doesn't make this type of discussion appropriate for them.