DIRECT action against drones (see article) is one way to deal with those that are up to no good. In part of the United States, however, politicians propose to go after drone operators too, by making the use of a drone to commit a felony an aggravating action. A bill now being steered through Washington’s state legislature by Pam Roach, a state senator, would create an offence of “nefarious drone enterprise”.

So far, Mrs Roach’s proposal has passed votes in both houses of the legislature, winning the support of Democrat representatives and senators as well as that of her fellow Republicans. If she can succeed in attaching it to a forthcoming vote on the state’s budget, it could become law within weeks.

If that happens, anyone convicted of using an unmanned aerial vehicle to plan or carry out a felony would automatically have a year in prison tacked onto his sentence. Nefarious drone enterprise would thus join such activities as carrying a firearm (up to five years extra), trying to outrun a police car (one year) or being armed with a crossbow or hunting knife (at least six months).

Mrs Roach fears drones may be used to smuggle drugs into prisons, to help burglars scout empty houses or to enable poachers to track the state’s protected herds of Roosevelt elk. Not everyone, though, is convinced of the need for the law. Arguing against it, Paul Strophy, a local defence lawyer, notes that, unlike carrying weapons or travelling at speed to escape a police car, drones do not themselves create much additional risk to the public, so their mere involvement in a crime should not be a reason for additional punishment.

Nor would the penalty apply to crimes that were misdemeanours, rather than felonies. Yet that would exclude many illegal activities in which drones might play a part, such as the surreptitious recording of conversations. Conversely, the law could have perverse effects in some not particularly serious offences that happen to count as felonies. At the moment, for example, peeping toms in Washington typically get a sentence of ten weeks. Peeping with a drone would multiply this by six.

Mrs Roach’s answer to the misdemeanour question is that she hopes, if her proposal does pass, that it will be extended in the future to cover them, too. “A year in jail is appropriate,” she says, “and my intent is for it to apply to the commission of any crime.” Drone operators whose aircraft inadvertently take pictures of skinny-dipping neighbours had better be prepared for the worst.