While the topic of commercial drones has generated lots of policy conversation, controversy, confusion, and competition for market presence, to date, there’s been a failure to address the true focus of the technology –the user. Consequently, it’s time to move from narrow discussions on privacy, fund raising, and legislation, to understanding what the concerns of law enforcement, security officers, and businesses are, as they are actually going to be the ones using this technology. So, let’s sidestep the regulatory quicksand for the moment, and turn our attention to those considering using commercial UAS and those concerned about how to protect against errant or intentionally hostile UAS. As an end-user, there is still very little informed guidance, full stop. And, having a permissive regulatory environment will not alone address the challenges posed by UAS. Those tasked with operational jobs to perform and ensure safety, security, and business continuity may be looking at how to efficiently and effectively employ the use of UAS platforms to deliver services or provide data both necessary and sufficient to supplant or complement the use of existing inspection, surveillance, and monitoring practices. Additionally, there are those tasked with preventing operational disruption of any kind that must consider what, when, how, where, why, and who is (or should) be responsible for preventing autonomous or semi-autonomous platforms from causing losses. Considering the use of UAS (as an enabling technology) into operational planning requires a thoughtful assessment that looks at risk across the spectrum – from financing to reputation. While there is more data available on the performance of commercial UAS for particular purposes such as inspecting critical infrastructure; monitoring agricultural processes; facilitating faster claims management; etc. there is very limited data on the efficacy of counter-UAS capabilities. The tacit assumption that employing the use of spin-off military counter drone systems will be easy peasy lemon squeesy, is anything but. There are very real limitations constraining end-users or prospective end-users considering the incorporation of UAS into their risk mitigation strategies. Furthermore, the technical, political, and doctrinal gaps that frame what, why, when, how, where, and who should be responsible for countering negligent or unintentionally errant drones or drones piloted with hostile intent are significant. Alleged technical solutions – reliable or not – are only one part of the equation.