Ultralights, not UAVs. The picture of the downed ultralight clearly has a pilot seat and instrumentation.
The only place UAV is mentioned in the article is an editorial addition to a quote from the sensor vendor "[unmanned aerial vehicles]". If you follow the link to the vendor site, you will find the vendor advertises their sensor as an adjunct to "unmanned aerial systems", i.e. the boarder patrol's UAVs, not the smuggler's UAVs.
[edit] My bad, the vendor does say it's system can track bad guy's UASes, although I still object to the sensationalizing of the HN headline vs. the Wired article that talks almost exclusively about ultralights.
I caught that as well. Still costs less to put a sacrificial mule in the driver seat than to automate them. A long time ago when Georgia Tech was flying GPS guided helicopters in the UAV contests I wondered just how much it would cost to build a drug mule like that. Should be pretty trivial, drop via GPS and you don't need human pilots. Of course if you get spotted a human can abort back over the border but a robot will lead the follower to the drop point.
so plan on the UAV getting tracked, and drop multiple payloads along the route - expect some to get taken, but it requires DEA to follow the entire path instead of looking for the point in the path where the UAV turns around to go home.
actually, that is way to complicated. drug runners come up with some really simple solutions to problems, that to more educated people seem stupid, but is a perfect example of a MVP.
MIDD - multiple independent drug drops :-) I was going for a pun on MIRV but didn't quite get there. One of the things is that payload value is linear with volume and delivery platform cost is inverse exponential with size. Seems like the ultralight as a 'platform' hits a sweet spot. The rail gun the navy is looking at should be able to lob a projectile 200 miles so perhaps we can look forward to artillery delivery of drugs into southern AZ.
A step further: you send 10 planes, only a single plane is loaded with drugs, the 9 other with stones. Now DEA has to track 10 planes doing multiple drops.
It was obviously an ultralight, but how do we know it wasn't converted an an unmanned vehicle. I can't imagine it would be hard to convert one to use radio controlled servos. Not having a pilot would free up a lot of weight for the shipment. The shipments they talk about are 250lbs, which is the same as the regulated amount ultralights are allowed to carry. The cartels wouldn't care about the regulations, obviously, but they would care about not over-stressing the engineering limits of the aircraft which would risk losing $400k to $16M in product (if the article is correct) if it crashed.
> how do we know it wasn't converted an an unmanned vehicle
We don't, but I don't think anyone would be considering that had 'UAV' not been in the HN post's title (whilst not in the link's own title or description of the vehicle).
And there it goes another $US100 million [1] on technology that won't solve the problem.
They should stop this nonsense, legalize the stuff and regulate the market. More tax money could be collected to be invested in society, for instance, to create jobs. Governments that do this could even fund startups, and further create more jobs. Though, not for the right people I guess.
Wait a cotton picking minute. I abandoned a bunch of robotic product ideas because I couldn't find a market niche that could afford them. I have the skills to make fully autonomous UAVs and AUVs. Here is a very wealthy market niche. Hmmmm....
I'm pretty sure it's legal to build and sell things that could be used for illegal purposes.
So, how many Hacker News reading intercontinental drug dealers are out there?
In my understanding, the load-carrying capability of most ultralights is minimal. They give figures based on 250 pounds of drugs, but in some models of ultralight, I would have weigh under 190 pounds just to get airborne with a full tank of gas. I'm not able to find how many of those 223 "ultralight incursions" were actually carrying drugs, either. I question the reality of this problem.
Why not legalize all of the drugs? We've proven that we can't stop people from using drugs. What advantage is there in ensuring that the billions spent on drugs gets funneled into the hands of hardened criminals?
There's a lot of different arguments. I can't remember them all, but the first one that comes to mind is the hope that legalizing softer drugs would reduce demand for harder, still-illegal drugs. Especially if legalization reduces prices of the softer drugs.
This could be powerful, for example, if we identify that a certain drug is fairly safe but its relatives are not. Legalize the safer form, not the dangerous forms, and market incentives will cause most people to favor the now-legal form. Everybody wins (Though this presumes we have "comparables" to pick between)
I won't pretend to know enough about all drugs to advocate legalizing them all, but certainly some like Marijuana aren't exactly making Amsterdam and Vancouver collapse overnight.
If you make something illegal you make them more scarce and therefore more valuable. Erase the value by erasing the scarcity and the problem actually just goes away.
For harder substances I am not certain if this makes sense.
"Serious drug use is down significantly, particularly among young people; the burden on the criminal-justice system has eased; the number of people seeking treatment has grown; and the rates of drug-related deaths and cases of infectious diseases have fallen."
Better that then sending non-violent criminals into for-profit prison systems, destroying lives of the families impacted, and generally making the wrong people rich(er) for the wrong reasons.
Hemp is illegal in America for christ sake. Not because "its related to weed" either. Its because we can make anything out of hemp and that doesn't generate profit.
How anything naturally made by earth (weed, hemp, opium) can be labeled "illegal" is arrogant of the human race. What makes us think we know better than nature?
There are plenty of natural poisons out there that could kill us instantly. Why dont we make poison dart frogs illegal? Why aren't venomous snakes illegal?
I think the nuance is that opium and weed in small amounts won't kill you (and there is evidence to suggest that weed can't kill you at all, ever. I'm not entirely sure though).
Poision dart frogs on the other hand, you don't really get a "second try". Didn't realize they were illegal but I suppose it makes sense. Its poison after all.
Support addicts... and their families and child services in some cases. I don't want to turn this into "think of the children", but in case we're talking about addicts which need to be taken care of by the government, it's unlikely that the effect will be limited to that single person only. In case that person needs to be treated in a special way, that person may affect the nearby environment too.
>it's unlikely that the effect will be limited to that single person only
It's unlikely that the effect has been limited to that single person only. We don't care about the families now when we put their parents in prison - so why would keeping parents out of prison and reducing the price and risk associated with their drugs give us more of an obligation to their families?
Imagine our elected representatives trying to come up with laws, regulations, tax policies, public health issues (think big tabacco), arrests (there are currently many more alcohol related arrests than drug related arrests).
Not saying that this isn't something that shouldn't be considered, just pointing out that it isn't without cost.
When you said "violet career criminals" I thought of the military industrial complex. They are also being enriched by this, since (for some unknown reason) if it's drugs + a border that seems to mean it deserves a military-style response.
Treat them like alcohol. They already have all the answers to those questions solved for it, and, in some cases (driving while impaired, for instance), they already are treated mostly the same.
the US government spends $100 million on sensors yet the catels stand to make (if you can believe the figures) "$16 million wholesale" for one shipment of cocaine via this method.
The drug cartels stand to make more selling drugs than the US government spent trying to stop them in merely 7 trips with an ultralight
$16 million is revenue, not profit, but I agree the scale is amazing. I know the price of cocaine in America is thousands of times more than straight out of the lab in Columbia. I wonder how big of a cut each group takes from the massive profit as it works it's way to America...
Because in English, that second 'o' in such an awkward place would obviously become a schwa, and because the country's namesake is spelled with a 'u' in English, too?
"There’s a reason coke and heroin cost so much more on the street than at the farm gate: you’re not paying for the drugs; you’re compensating everyone along the distribution chain for the risks they assumed in getting them to you. Smugglers often negotiate, in actuarial detail, about who will be held liable in the event of lost inventory. After a bust, arrested traffickers have been known to demand a receipt from authorities, so that they can prove the loss was not because of their own negligence (which would mean they might have to pay for it) or their own thievery (which would mean they might have to die). Some Colombian cartels have actually offered insurance policies on narcotics, as a safeguard against loss or seizure."(source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-dru...)
A simple UAV is not far off and I am sure they are working on it. You can bet your bottom dollar on it. It is a very interesting problem to solve. The U.S. government has to deal with subs, tunnels, and now ultralights.
I agree. A few Google searches and I can find out how to extend the rage of a AR.Drone to over 2 kilometers.[0] If they're serious about their business they're doing the same thing. Slap a prepaid cell phone on it, start up any of the popular webstreaming apps[1], and bam. You're in business.
You can fly it to a drop, check the landing space for friendly faces, and hit a back-up spot if things don't look good. Or, if you're good, just fly it into someone's back yard. It may be more costly than having someone run drugs, but at least drones can't talk (save the login and broadcast info they show, I suppose.)
And if I can think of something like this, I'd expect them to have money on actually solving their problems.
I wonder why the "DIY for drugs" movement is taking so long to become mainstream. I mean, it makes sense that the role of drug cartels should be diminished by now. With governments reluctant to legalize anything, an "open drugs" initiative might work.
That made me smile - you really don't know a lot about drug manufacturing, do you?
A couple of points:
1. The war against drugs may not seem very effective to you, but it is in its own perverted way: punishment is harsh - add to that that the kind of people who would attempt something as complex as that (brainy people who often have sth. to lose) would get raped in prison on a daily basis. Just look at the Aryan Brotherhood - depending on the scale of your undertaking, they are the kind of people you would be in a cell with. Don't underestimate this as a strong deterring factor.
Another interesting article on the excesses of drug law enforcement and the history of drug prohibition:
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/opium-made-easy/
2. Who say there isn't such a movement? Somebody already mentioned marihuana growing, but there was at least one very high profile webforum that discussed these matters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hive_%28website%29
3. Precursors and apparatus are expensive and hard to get (in Texas you can't even buy glassware without registration).
4. If you are making drugs for your own consumption, you want them to be safe (for example free of unhealthy precursors) - the analytics are even more complicated and expensive than the manufacturing.
5. Everybody can turn on you - hiding an undertaking of that scale would be nearly impossible if you have a social life (friends, family etc.). As I tried to point out above, you are literally taking your life in your hands when you are working with these things: whom would you trust with your life? One wrong word from a drunken friend and "the conseuquences will be never be the same". You are moving into a war zone and your loved ones with you.
I think the future lies in biotransformations - candian scientist apparently have alread done it for yeast:
www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/493629-Canadian-scientists-create-morphine-producing-yeast
Such a system will completely destroy both the drug market and prohibition. People will simply cultivate their drugs in yeast in the forseeable future.
I think you are describing the situation in America, where i 'm not. I am wholly against drug use on philosophical grounds, but i would assume that their production would be easier today than it was in the past. I mean, we have personal PCR machines, i would assume the mechanics of drugmaking would have evolved since the 70s (no Moore's law there?)
Even other countries get pressured into drug prohibition - to my knowledge, there is no country where it would be safe (as in legal) to make drugs for yourself (Portugal maybe?). Not every prison system is as inhumane as that of the US, but here in Germany we had a report just last week that the chance of getting raped in juvenile prison is shockingly high.
Getting precursors and equipment would at least be rather expensive here (also chemical suppliers are prone to notify the police if you buy the "wrong" stuff).
PCR machines are essentially Peltier blocks with a chunk of aluminium on top - there is no hard tech in these things.
A used chromatograph with detectors is easily above 10.000€ - I saw a guy in a german chemistry forum who bought a gas chromatograph with detector(s?) for around 10000€.
You don't absolutely need one - but if you want to be sure about the cleanliness of your product you need some kind of analysis. I have to admit although I have vocational training in chemistry and analytics I don't know how low the detection threshold of something like a TLC plate is, which would be the easiest (/cheapest) way to get a guesstimate.
Overall this looks easy when you get into it (it's just a bunch of chemical reactions after all) but the closer you look at it, the harder it gets.
There is no Moores law in chemistry - there are probably a lot of new synthetic pathways that could be applicable; finding the right ones (to get a good yield; to use available precursors) is hard and takes knowledge the average weekend warrior won't have (it would be a lot easier to just use the recipes on rhodiums archive and try to make the precursors you can't buy).
There's already a diy movement for weed. there are forums with growing techniques and tips.
But i'm not sure it does reduce the risk in a big way. It might even increase the risk, while also increasing complexity and work. Doesn't see like a good solution.
> The agency can’t legally shoot down ultralight planes just for carrying weed and blow.
How do they know what they're carrying? I sure hope some US government agency (DoD springs to mind) has the authority to shoot down sketchy aerial vehicles flying into the US from foreign territory and dropping stuff without radio contact or filed flight plans.
Think for a bit what terrorists or foreign powers could do to us if we let our airspace turn into a free-for-all.
The cartels already use submarines, cargo planes, fisher boats, remote-controlled aircrafts and corpses to smuggle drugs. Their creativity and supply of cash are limitless.
It is amazing that the porn industry (for tech stuff) and drug cartels continuously push the boundaries - many times more than the "normal" businesses out there.
serious question: Are these drug cartels really more dangerous than our governments and lobbies and the financial mafia? If you would try to sell oil and the other big players would make less money then you would probably have an accident.
The only place UAV is mentioned in the article is an editorial addition to a quote from the sensor vendor "[unmanned aerial vehicles]". If you follow the link to the vendor site, you will find the vendor advertises their sensor as an adjunct to "unmanned aerial systems", i.e. the boarder patrol's UAVs, not the smuggler's UAVs.
[edit] My bad, the vendor does say it's system can track bad guy's UASes, although I still object to the sensationalizing of the HN headline vs. the Wired article that talks almost exclusively about ultralights.