Just blame a droneFirst there would need to be a flying object that needed to be identified
Perhaps bring in HMS Duncan. I was impressed by its radar, they could control all air traffic to much of the UK, it can track multiple targets 150 miles away size of a cricket ball, travelling at 3 times the speed of sound.
Time to bring in James Bond then!Just as a theoretical exercise, the following uses no names to protect the potentially guilty, or innocent, and to eliminate liability on my part. Nothing written is to be construed as making an allegation or accusing any person, corporation, or company of wrong doing. Remember, it's all theory, hypothetical, and fictional, and intended as a mental exercise to examine the plausibility, regardless of how remote, of such an event taking place.
Suppose there was a drone manufacturer that demonstrated an attitude of "owning the world". Suppose that manufacturer had largely funded the foundation of a separate company in order to develop software that would enable the incorporation of "no fly zones" in their auto pilot firmware. That firmware could not be bypassed without corrupting the system code, but by using personally identifiable information such as credit card, passport, and phone numbers a user could obtain a temporary "permission" to fly in locations restricted by no fly zone firmware. What if that company had a habit of collecting flight information said to be necessary for protecting themselves from public liability by willingly providing user flight data to various authorities? Suppose that company was owned by a megalomaniac that liked to brag about his personal net worth, and his desire to increase that wealth even further?
What if that manufacturer was subject to intelligence gathering laws of a country that exercised total population control and has a long history of of waging technological information violations of property belonging to people and companies of other countries? What if that company was a willing participant in Article 7 of China’s National Intelligence Law?
What if that manufacturer had a proven history of exploiting data obtained from their products while they were under the control of the users?
What if that company had employed political lobbyists and legal teams in various countries in order to leverage governments to adopt the company's version of no fly zone and flight restriction software as part of national or international law? Might that company receive untold revenue from other companies that were suddenly required by law to enter software license agreements with the company that developed the software? What if that company had achieved success on one continent but failed to succeed in other highly populated continents having high levels of drone sales? How might their success be accomplished in those regions where politicians, other corporate interests, and the general public had created the resistance necessary to block them?
Using the qualifiers from one of my previous posts we've already established that governments and politicians are corrupt, people will toss of a monkey for a buck, and government employees will usually do as they are told and keep their mouths shut. Suppose a drone company with plenty of money used a portion of it to bribe a few people to allow the creation of a fake crisis? A few million $$ here and there, deposited in discrete offshore personal accounts, would not have a negative effect on the company's bottom line as that money would be made up through interest bearing accounts over the course of just a few days. It's entirely possible the government of the country of company origin might fund such an endeavor in order to assist intelligence gathering efforts. The sad part is that many will do some pretty shady (treasonous) stuff for just a little bit of money. It takes very little to buy most people as those people don't consider that if they are exposed that money may well be all they have to live on while on the run for the rest of their lives. The compensation doesn't even have to be money, it could be drugs, sex, increased popularity, elevated professional status, a large increase in YouTube hits, pretty much anything.
So, could a company with extensive resources corrupt a few politicians and airport personnel in order to create a crisis that massively inconvenienced the public, threatened public safety, that would be reported by the press at international levels, with their usual level of accuracy, that would cause the general public to loudly insist their governments incorporate flight restriction technology and employ devices to combat drone incursions that are available but illegal to use in the civilian environment under the current legal structure? The end game would not only benefit the drone company, as every drone sold by any manufacturer would have paid for a software license, It would also benefit those companies that have been developing anti drone technology along with large corporate entities that have been preparing to initiate use of long range BLOS drones in civilian airspace, and the intelligence agencies of a certain country would receive a massive increase in their intelligence gathering capabilities. Many don't realize just how valuable low level aerial imagery can be, and how it can be used to augment poorly executed mapping tech such as Google Street View, or provide clear views of those Google Earth type images governments require to be obscured before imagery is made public. The intel side might well be the most important factor in a contrived crisis event.
There are a lot more possible "what if's" and "how to's" I've left out of the above but those willing to think about things a little deeper will figure them out. The question is: Could such a scenario be possible? Remember, all the above is a hypothetical exercise. Have fun with it
One thing I've learned as I've got older, is nothing is impossible and nothing surprises me anymore....Just as a theoretical exercise, the following uses no names to protect the potentially guilty, or innocent, and to eliminate liability on my part. Nothing written is to be construed as making an allegation or accusing any person, corporation, or company of wrong doing. Remember, it's all theory, hypothetical, and fictional, and intended as a mental exercise to examine the plausibility, regardless of how remote, of such an event taking place.
Suppose there was a drone manufacturer that demonstrated an attitude of "owning the world". Suppose that manufacturer had largely funded the foundation of a separate company in order to develop software that would enable the incorporation of "no fly zones" in their auto pilot firmware. That firmware could not be bypassed without corrupting the system code, but by using personally identifiable information such as credit card, passport, and phone numbers a user could obtain a temporary "permission" to fly in locations restricted by no fly zone firmware. What if that company had a habit of collecting flight information said to be necessary for protecting themselves from public liability by willingly providing user flight data to various authorities? Suppose that company was owned by a megalomaniac that liked to brag about his personal net worth, and his desire to increase that wealth even further?
What if that manufacturer was subject to intelligence gathering laws of a country that exercised total population control and has a long history of of waging technological information violations of property belonging to people and companies of other countries? What if that company was a willing participant in Article 7 of China’s National Intelligence Law?
What if that manufacturer had a proven history of exploiting data obtained from their products while they were under the control of the users?
What if that company had employed political lobbyists and legal teams in various countries in order to leverage governments to adopt the company's version of no fly zone and flight restriction software as part of national or international law? Might that company receive untold revenue from other companies that were suddenly required by law to enter software license agreements with the company that developed the software? What if that company had achieved success on one continent but failed to succeed in other highly populated continents having high levels of drone sales? How might their success be accomplished in those regions where politicians, other corporate interests, and the general public had created the resistance necessary to block them?
Using the qualifiers from one of my previous posts we've already established that governments and politicians are corrupt, people will toss of a monkey for a buck, and government employees will usually do as they are told and keep their mouths shut. Suppose a drone company with plenty of money used a portion of it to bribe a few people to allow the creation of a fake crisis? A few million $$ here and there, deposited in discrete offshore personal accounts, would not have a negative effect on the company's bottom line as that money would be made up through interest bearing accounts over the course of just a few days. It's entirely possible the government of the country of company origin might fund such an endeavor in order to assist intelligence gathering efforts. The sad part is that many will do some pretty shady (treasonous) stuff for just a little bit of money. It takes very little to buy most people as those people don't consider that if they are exposed that money may well be all they have to live on while on the run for the rest of their lives. The compensation doesn't even have to be money, it could be drugs, sex, increased popularity, elevated professional status, a large increase in YouTube hits, pretty much anything.
So, could a company with extensive resources corrupt a few politicians and airport personnel in order to create a crisis that massively inconvenienced the public, threatened public safety, that would be reported by the press at international levels, with their usual level of accuracy, that would cause the general public to loudly insist their governments incorporate flight restriction technology and employ devices to combat drone incursions that are available but illegal to use in the civilian environment under the current legal structure? The end game would not only benefit the drone company, as every drone sold by any manufacturer would have paid for a software license, It would also benefit those companies that have been developing anti drone technology along with large corporate entities that have been preparing to initiate use of long range BLOS drones in civilian airspace, and the intelligence agencies of a certain country would receive a massive increase in their intelligence gathering capabilities. Many don't realize just how valuable low level aerial imagery can be, and how it can be used to augment poorly executed mapping tech such as Google Street View, or provide clear views of those Google Earth type images governments require to be obscured before imagery is made public. The intel side might well be the most important factor in a contrived crisis event.
There are a lot more possible "what if's" and "how to's" I've left out of the above but those willing to think about things a little deeper will figure them out. The question is: Could such a scenario be possible? Remember, all the above is a hypothetical exercise. Have fun with it
I find the older you get somethings do become impossible!
Latest update from Gatwick
