Opinion: Europe Needs Drone Security Without Killing Hobbyists’ Freedom
Drone incursions across Europe are once again making headlines. From Munich to Copenhagen, airports have been forced to close and thousands of passengers disrupted. It is understandable that governments, airlines, and police want to act decisively. But there is a danger that in the rush to legislate and ban, we punish the wrong people and still fail to stop those who want to cause harm.
The Balance Between Freedom and Safety
There must be a balance between freedom and security. Tens of thousands of people in Europe use drones for legitimate commercial purposes: surveying, agriculture, filmmaking, news coverage, environmental monitoring. Hundreds of thousands more enjoy drones as a hobby. These users are already regulated. There are rules on altitude, where drones can fly, and licenses required for larger aircraft. The vast majority follow the law.
Adding more laws does not automatically increase safety. Those who cause disruption today are already breaking the existing rules. More regulation will not stop them, it only risks making life harder for law-abiding citizens and businesses.
Better Protection, Not More Paperwork
If airspace needs to be protected and it does, especially around airports, military sites, and energy infrastructure then better systems for detection and protection must be deployed. During the war in Ukraine, Russian forces quickly developed methods to locate drone operators, jam signals, and neutralize threats. If such systems can be used on the battlefield, then surely they can be adapted to protect airports and sensitive sites in Europe.
Deploying these systems requires investment, not endless debates about new laws. The technology exists: radar tuned for small aerial objects, radio-frequency detectors, AI-enabled cameras, and even interceptor drones. The bottleneck is political will and budget priorities.
The Dangers of Shooting Down Drones
Calls for “shoot down” powers should be treated with extreme caution. The risks are obvious: police officers are not trained soldiers. They rarely have the opportunity to practice drone interception, and many firearms discharges already lead to tragic collateral damage. Introducing live weapons into crowded urban airspace risks creating more harm than it prevents.
Europe needs precision tools, not blunt-force reactions. Neutralising drones through signal jamming, geo-fencing, or capture systems is far safer than filling the skies with stray bullets or even more sophisticated countermeasures in heavily populated areas.
Who Is Behind the Drone Incursions?
Many analysts immediately point to state-sponsored actors. Given Russia’s record of hybrid warfare, testing the resilience of NATO and EU responses without triggering direct confrontation, this is a reasonable suspicion. However, to focus only on states is to miss the full picture.
Terrorist groups and organised crime networks also have the motivation and capability to fly drones. Terrorists seek disruption, fear, and publicity. Criminal gangs may use drones for smuggling, reconnaissance, or to probe police response times. All three groups: states, terrorists, and criminals share an interest in testing Europe’s ability to detect, respond, and protect.
Whether it is Moscow, an extremist cell, or an organised smuggling ring, the threat model is broadly the same. The countermeasures required are also the same: early detection, quick neutralisation, and strong accountability for those responsible for sensitive sites.
Responsibility and Accountability
Technology to detect and stop drones already exists. It has been proven in Ukraine and elsewhere. There are systems we know about, and others less public but already in use. The question is not “can we” but “will we spend the money?”
If there is a case for new legislation, it should not target ordinary drone users. It should instead be focused on holding critical infrastructure operators accountable. Airports, energy plants, and military facilities must be required to deploy effective counter-drone technology. If they fail to do so, and disruption or worse occurs, then they should be held liable to the full extent of the law. This approach places responsibility where it belongs, with those who control high-risk sites, rather than with hobbyists flying in fields or businesses using drones to film construction projects.
A Call for Proportionate Response
Europe cannot afford paralysis. Drones are here to stay, and their misuse will not disappear. But we must be careful not to sacrifice freedom on the altar of security. Overregulation will not prevent rogue actors from breaking the rules. What will work is a combination of smart investment, proportionate enforcement, and accountability for those charged with protecting the most sensitive sites.
In other words: build the shields before you build more laws. Anything else risks punishing the innocent while leaving the vulnerable exposed.
Fidelis: For Those Who Still Value Truth
Fidelis News is free to read, but not free to make. If you value independent journalism, please consider supporting us:
Published October 5, 2025
By Fidelis News Opinion
