Dear Readers:
Today continuing (and concluding) this 3-part series on Russian drone regulation. Where we left off: We met a nice man named Roman Gusarov who edits the portal Avia.ru. Gusarov believes that the sufficient laws and regulations are already in place to handle the drone situation in Russia. I am not sure I agree with him, though, because the regulations only affect larger drones, anything larger than a small toy. However, even small toy drones could be an issue, I think. I have read some things (well, admittedly, sci-fi) in which swarms of bug-sized drones can be programmed to perform military tasks; and they can certainly carry cameras, at the minimum, and spy on unsuspecting people.
Anyhow, Gusarov goes on to discuss the issue of training of drone operators. Sometimes they are referred to as “external pilots”. In order to legally become one of these, a trainee must take a class, pass a test, and obtain a certificate. After which they are only allowed to operate their device under certain conditions and parameters. There are many exclusions and forbidden zones. You can’t just fly it wherever you please.
According to Gusarov, a national conversation is taking place as to the feasibility/desirability of establishing a unified system of transponders to control unmanned aerial devices. “But this has not yet been worked out in full detail. In time, the larger drones will be equipped with transponders, and then it will be possible to know at a glance if any particular device is flying around legally, because its transponder will respond to the signal.”
Gusarov opposes over-regulation, however. He criticizes the idea of licensing drone developers (inventors), especially those who build drones meant for civilian use. “Evil-doers will not be deterred, they are not going to apply for licenses, they will continue to build drones in their garage. We are not going to change anything with a system of required licensing. And those who are working legally will have the added annoyance of having to apply for a developer’s license.” Gusarov warns that: “A system of excessive licensing and regulation could complicate the process of creating small drone-developing businesses that are completely legal; indeed, the demand for these devices grows with every passing day.”
Gusarov reminds us of a national project that was initiated earlier this year, the project is called Unmanned Aviation Systems. This project is funded by the government, to the tune of 700 billion rubles from the Federal budget [around $7.5 billion American?] allocated in tranches that will run through the year 2030.
Indeed, unmanned aerial devices show extreme promise to be a major growth industry for the Russian economy. By 2030 one may expect the production of over 30,000 civilian drones per year, almost three times the current production.
Keeping all of this in mind, Gusarov has the final word in urging the government not to go overboard on regulations that may crimp this promising branch of the national economy: “Those who produce drones legally, are already registered as a company or individual entrepreneur. They pay taxes and function within the legal zone. And those who wish to create something illegally, those folks will not go out and apply for a license; and so there is no point to any of that. How is the licensing process supposed to weed out the dishonest producers? It won’t. The only thing that will stop them is when the police or other types of operatives suddenly appear on their doorstep.”
[THE END]
Awful Avalanche 
Amendment 2 of the Russian Constitution: “…the right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed.”
Humor aside, Mr. Gusarov has pointed to the same issue at such troubling work in the US: namely that regulation for the purpose of deterring criminal from their crimes simply doesn’t work. Laws, in fact, are only effective in a law-abiding society, in which case you’re best off with as few as possible so everyone can get on with the business of following them.
If you do not trust your society, are unwilling to suffer the effects of lawbreakers, or are vastly insecure about your precarious place in the world, then the only solution is to race for restrictions on root technologies, and then on the information of such technologies, and then on people who might (possibly) use them. Thus, the WEF idea of permanent impoverishment (“you will own nothing”), permanent surveillance, total information (thus, thought) control, and massive AI monitoring to identify and address potential problem persons for processing. All this makes perfect sense.
It also treats the worst dystopian settings as blueprints for the future of mankind, and is intensely materialistic and spiritually void. The challenge for Russia is how to craft a way of human society that recognizes the dangers of the authoritarian urge and squares that with a (re)turn to the spiritual place of man.
You’ve heard this before, but history offers great insight since in many respects the courses of our civilizations (plural) run in cycles and there are lessons in the challenges of past technological revolutions.
LikeLike
JC, the libertarian in me agrees with you, but the anti-anarchist in me worries about people running amok and building their own private armies.
Also, I think I agree with S Brennan in the points he made previously. Namely, that it is a moot point about criminals by their very nature not going to obey regulations. That shouldn’t even be used as a debating point pro or con regulations. For example, if there is a regulation that says you have to pass a test and have a certificate to fly a radio-controlled drone, and then the cops approach somebody flying one and ask to see their license, and they don’t have one, well, they know right away that person is noncompliant and possibly even a spy!
I mean, it’s not too much different from requiring a license to drive a car, although I imagine some extreme libertarians might say that is too much government control as well. In conclusion, I don’t really know what I believe, or where the line should be drawn, when it comes to regulating dangerous devices.
I do agree with you, however, on the dystopian nature of modern “neo-Liberal” societies and the way they lead to totalitarianism, what with AI and omnipresent camera surveillance and so on. Which situation drones will only make worse. As do those ordinary people who photograph everything and post everything onto the internet. Sometimes they do good, when, for example, they catch a cop hassling a civilian. But most of the time they are doing the work of the devil. Is it really necessary to shame a fellow ordinary citizen by posting them accidentally farting in the Walmart?
There is simply no privacy any more for anybody, and I think that is very dystopian.
LikeLike
Just to fish or hunt in my very rural state you need to have license. And in my state that requires you to know your species, seasons and how to return by-catch and restricted fish to the water so they don’t die and further deplete the at risk stock.
Then there’s the “skin in the game argument” you’re much more likely to follow the rules if there is something to lose. Just ask any kid whose lost his driver’s license because he lacked self-control. Or, ask the guy with restricted hours to be on the roads and a court ordered breathalyzer in his car because he got caught drinking and driving for the 3rd time…and we are not talking about 2-3 drinks, we are talking dead* drunk. He will lose his job if he loses his license, which means he’ll lose his house…yeah…he’s got skin in the game.
Civilian drones cause neighborhood fistfights and in my neck of the woods, ill-advised but, in my mind, justifiable gunfire. The 75 year old Viet Nam Combat veteran with a NO TRESPASSING [I mean it !!!] sign may have social issues but, you know what, you might too if you walked a mile in his boots…don’t have your drone buzz his place out of curiosity, just leave him the eff alone and he’ll do the same for you. And don’t call the sheriff’s office if the guy shoots your prize $1200.00 turkey out of the sky like a clay pigeon. It’s hard to have enforceable rules when there is no real consequence and the perp in question is allowed to “play stupid”. A license will remove that song and dance number. Aviation has always been a privilege…I believe the Wright Bothers certified the first license US pilots…so yeah, from the very beginning.
*Just last year a young mother, who had a rough life but remained pleasant in spite of her hard luck, a woman that was a good clerk at a store I frequent was killed by a drunk who slammed into her car while she was on her way home from work. The drunk-guy had been caught 2-3[?] times before and he tried to flee the hospital. They are having a hard time finding a jury around here because everybody wants the guy lynched. That kind of drinking and driving, not a beer or two before heading home from work.
LikeLike
BTW, wanted to mention another interesting Simplicius article:
3M22 Zircon: Debunking Misconceptions
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/3m22-zircon-debunking-misconceptions
LikeLike
File Under: War is a Continuation of Policy by Other Means
This from Indian Punchline;
“The bottom line here is that the aid package aims on the one hand to avoid a catastrophic military situation arising at the front in the coming months, which could be politically damaging for Biden’s re-election bid”
—————————————-
So why is Trump supporting this bill? Doesn’t Team-Trump understand that this war is an albatross they plan on hanging around his neck? Supporting this bill makes no sense, it makes this war…Trump’s to lose. Biden leaves office as “the brave warrior” who stood up to Putin !!! And Trump? Trump gets painted as the loser who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Who is giving Trump this advice?
The flip side is, Time is a Factor in War. The more time you give your opponent to figure out a way to increase your losses, the more losses you will incur. I have yet to read of how an Army/Marine/Navy/Air-Force Commander, who moved slowly and very predictably, reduced his casualties…maybe that happens but, just the opposite is the norm in war. Yes, there are no big losses on one day but, if the war drags on year after year the day to day losses can bleed the “victor” white.
Russia sees this war as existential and can’t understand why the west is going to such extreme lengths when a loss hardly matters in the balance of power, I offer up this for consideration.
For the 3LAs/Deep-State/National-Security-State…et al this war represents the ultimate repudiation of their 70+ years of incompetent rule. Yes, they can murder, lie, cheat, steal and blackmail as well as any mafia boss but, every “win on the cheap war” they’ve “engineered” has turned into a shit-show. If the 3LAs didn’t blackmail everybody in DC they’d have been given the bum’s rush long ago; unless they can successfully make Trump play the role of “Oswald” for this murderous war they will come under some well deserved scrutiny, reorganization, definitive command structure and budget cutting. Wonder who the 3LAs cast to play Jack Ruby in this low budget mockbuster?
LikeLike
I’m sure Trump is being fed a variety of bad advice from the people he hangs out with, including Jared. The anti-Russian poison has been dripped into the west–and the world–for so long it’s hard to find anyone willing to think critically through it, and even rarer to find anyone casually knowledgeable regarding the history.
Why would Trump be any different? He’s a real-estate and reality entertainment mogul, not a deep thinker. His understanding of the world is expressed as a reflexive (if fairly sensical) intuition and a large dose of pugnaciousness–it just so happens that both are valuable qualities in so much as they frustrate the designs of very, very fragile tyrants, but without an incredibly based grey eminence to guide Trump, he’s going to end up holding the bag for America’s next uncivil war.
Stepping back for a minute, however, I’m not even sure Trump would mind that: there is a large segment of the population that now thinks a split is inevitable if not desirable, and those same foreign financial tyrants would call a physically fractured USA an acceptable outcome to the extent it make such territories easier to control (via corruption) and exploit (ala Russia 1990+).
Somewhat similarly, there ought to be a fraction that sees Trumps instinctual recoil from NATO as a positive. Consider: the only control rod between NATO in a full-on kinetic war with Russia is the USA’s atomic arsenal and organizational pull. Remove those, and the same level of genocide can be unleashed on ALL of Europe, while the USA serves its usual purpose of either a) waiting to pick up the pieces, and/or b) picking a fight in the Pacific.
I don’t mean to say such a turn is probable, but given the current trajectories it is possible.
LikeLike
S, thanks for the sensible comments and the Simplicius link!
LikeLike
Gusarov gets it. Regulations are a necessary evil that should be introduced carefully. You shouldn’t have more regulations than common people respect. Otherwise you end up like the EU where everything drowns in red tape. Alternatively you become like China where people don’t give a damn about all the regulations:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AynNsPs9i80]
I’m impressed by those 700 billion rubles that Russia has earmarked for drones. (That’s probably about the same amount that the EU has earmarked for studying the climate impact of drones.) Anyway, I just saw that the IMF values the ruble at 33, not ~100, so that means it’s closer to $20 billion in purchasing power.
Btw, Russian kids now learn to fly drones in school, alongside shooting Kalashnikovs:
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2023/0821/1400866-russia-drones/
LikeLike
I wonder what the Europeans will conclude about the climate impact of drones. I can’t see how they would affect the climate, although I imagine they might present an additional challenge to birds and bats. Some new flying thing to avoid, oh well!
LikeLike
Thanks, yes, part of the key point in minimizing the regulations/laws at work is to ensure the populace has the mental bandwidth to respect them.
To Brennan’s point, licensing is feasible for all cited reasons, including giving an excuse to arrest some idiot too foolish to even pass a basic drone piloting document requirement. It won’t keep a criminal or a traitor from doing their thing, though–even criminals have driver’s licenses after all. (Well, maybe not the illegal aliens.)
LikeLike
I think we have had a pretty good discussion on this forum, on this topic. Thanks to everyone!
LikeLike