Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2016 | Page 79

An Assessment of Lone Wolves Using Explosive-Laden Consumer Drones in the United States
be especially effective in warzones, the human eye also has a history of identifying
drones in recreational settings. After experimenting with various technical defense
assets tailored to drone detection, Major League Baseball security officials concluded,
“One of the best ways to detect drones is simply to deputize the crowd [because] when
it comes to spotting small drones, 80,000 eyeballs are better than radar” (Ripley 2015,
72). Although this may not be the best defense for long-term static targets, where a
small guard force would likely patrol access points and areas with few physical barriers,
the human eye is the optimal defense for a temporary static target, such as a large
crowd at an event. Complacency may detract from effectiveness, as drones become
more common in the skies and operators disregard flight restrictions. While observant
crowds may provide early warning, they offer little in the form of interdiction.
Geofencing
Geofencing is one of the most cost-effective and viable methods to mitigate
the chance of a terrorist using a consumer drone in an attack. Invented by DJI and
first implemented in April 2014, GPS geofencing is a technique where a manufacturer
designates no-fly zones in coded form, imbedded in firmware, to prevent drones from
entering certain areas (Poulsen 2015). Within the United States, DJI currently has nofly
zones around airports and the White House, but DJI and other drone manufacturers
should include additional no-fly zones in future firmware or as updates to protect vital
infrastructure and other potential terrorist targets.
Individuals with technical and sophisticated knowledge of firmware could
potentially bypass or disable such security measures, but such knowledge and skills
are not a common trait among lone wolves in the United States. Geofencing could,
therefore, convince a potential lone wolf to abandon a target or select a different target
unprotected by this security feature. Alternatively, it might force a lone wolf to seek
expertise or technical assistance through the internet, Dark Web or other means,
delaying an attack and increasing the likelihood of interdiction by the Intelligence
Community. If the terrorist is unaware of geofencing features, the defense mechanism
might interdict the drone during the actual attack. These no-fly zones would be most
effective in defending long-term static targets, but manufacturers can implement and
push updates to include temporary static targets.
Kinetic Defense
Shooting down a drone with small arms fire is the most likely and feasible
form of drone intercept in an area not geofenced or if a drone bypasses geofencing
restrictions. In urban areas, where most of lone wolf temporary static and mobile
targets exist, retired Air Force Major General Frederick F. Roggero stated, “it would
be tough to detect and tough to defeat kinetically without shooting it down and
causing collateral damage” (Leonnig and Whitlock 2015). Faster drone speeds and
smaller dimensions certainly contribute to potential collateral damage caused during
interdiction attempts. Additionally, “shooting down drones is usually illegal,” and
73