
Why we should worry about domestic drones and how to bring them down - prostoalex
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/05/why-we-should-care-about-domestic-drones-and-how-to-bring-them-down/?utm_source=Facebook
======
MereInterest
From the title, I thought that the article was going to be about the rise of
the surveillance state, and how monitoring/tracking drones would be the next
battleground in the War on Privacy. Instead, we get a fearmongering article
that stops one step short of suggesting that civilian drone ownership be
banned.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Yes, the implications here are very troubling: that security for high
government officials is more important than privacy and anonymity for the rest
of us.

For those of us in the states, how the &*$# did we end up here? Was this value
system mentioned anywhere in our founding documents? In any government/civics
class that any of us took in school? Who are the people they have making these
arguments?

~~~
maxerickson
If you squint just a little bit, a huge percentage of the population _wants_ a
king. Starting from there, it's not surprising that leaders get that
treatment.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It has always been this way, and we're supposed to have a system of government
that realizes and actively fights this desire.

Over the past several decades, however, the system of self-restraints has
broken, however, probably irreparably. I don't think there was any one reason
or master conspiracy or anything -- just lots of little compromises made by
people doing the best they could.

Understanding why it happened doesn't make it any better, though.

Back in Lincoln's day you could ride all the way to DC, wait in line at the
White House, and based on a lottery be able to go in and talk to the
president. And he would feel embarrassed for whatever problems you had and
would listen to you patiently.

Those days are long gone. And the goal of perfect safety for elected officials
is still just as far away now as it was then. Not a good trade for the
republic.

~~~
maxerickson
I wonder how different Lincoln's listening was from petitions.whitehouse.gov.

------
mike-cardwell
Rather than controlling it remotely, you could programme in a destination and
time and it could rely on GPS and a backup gyroscope for when GPS is
unavailable. Fast forward a decade or two when the tech has improved a bit,
and add a camera and facial recognition and let it rip on your target of
choice. They get good at shooting them down? Make sure you send 50 of them
instead of 1.

[edit] It seems inevitable to me that this will happen at some point in the
next few decades. It also seems inevitable to me that countries will enact
laws to try and prevent it. But that it will happen anyway. No matter what law
is created.

------
alkonaut
It's not hard to imagine cheap(ish) long range autonomous drones that can't be
jammed. Such a drone can't communicate or coordinate attacks in flight, but a
mere timer or location trigger can still make an attack pretty exact.

The technology is sufficiently cheap and available off the shelf today that
even a moderately skilled person could assemble an autonomous drone that
carries a small bomb and detonates it at a specific coordinate at a speficic
point in time. Any viable defense is a dome, either physical or virtual (e.g.
realized by autonomous lasers, some form of projectile weapon, or a swarm of
counter dronws). In any case it's clear how asymmetric the threat is in the
sense that any viable defense is orders of magnitude more advanced and
expensive than the attack.

The simplest way of avoiding these attacks in their simplest form is likely
already in place for high value targets: you don't reveal an exact time and
place for an appearance, being a few meters or a few minutes off is enough to
thwart the dumbest drones.

~~~
marcosdumay
There are communication channels that can't be jammed in practice (eg. color
and shape codes). The drone does not need to be completely mute and
uncordianted.

The way to avoid this kind of attack is the same way people has been avoiding
for ages somebody hiding a bomb with a clock at the target. It's done by
police investigation and arresting the people as soon as they start making
bombs. Helped by the fact that most people that want to do something like that
are too stupid not to blow themselves while trying, this has been good enough
for a long time.

------
fit2rule
We need to teach our children how to make airplanes. As long as we can, as a
living generation, assure future generations that this technology will be
something they can, themselves, benefit from, then we have a chance.

It is true of all technology: it can be weaponized. So, use it more
peacefully, with more enthusiasm to promote life, and stay safe. Fact: drones
are good for the environment. Conversion to a drone-based delivery system
could be a very positive impact on our environment through transportation. The
drone-pizzabox is a good idea, death robots from the sky are a very, very bad
idea. As long as you know how to make a flying thing out of a bit of greasy
cardboard, you can stay safe in the universe. Pizza helps too.

------
guscost
Not to get all libertarian, but this reminds me of the gun control debate.
What this person seems to be most worried about (a drone attack) would
necessarily be the work of a criminal. But what this person seems to be
endorsing (a law restricting civilian drone use) would mostly limit the
freedom of those who follow the law. It's very silly and a bit disappointing.

~~~
engendered
_a law restricting civilian drone use_

Was this submission originally linked to something else? The submission talks
about jamming and techniques to shoot down drones. I coincidentally mentioned
on here yesterday the business opportunities around anti-drone technology-

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8998369](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8998369)

None of this has anything to do with banning drones. Several comments thus far
have fearmongered a worry that the article doesn't even remotely claim.

EDIT: While I know that commenting on moderation is verboten, and seldom
beneficial, the moderation in this discussion are _embarrassing_. Fear-
mongering hysterics of the actual worst kind, incapable of discussing actual
changes without rhetoric and propaganda. Though now I see this was flagged to
the fourth page, unseen by normal rational people.

~~~
guscost
A restriction does not necessarily mean a ban. From the article:

> For the recreational pilot who loses control of his machine, better firmware
> can keep it from hovering over prohibited areas like the White House.

Now of course it's hard to argue that a special blacklist for programmable GPS
does not make some sense. But this kind of agenda always starts out at the
fringes. What I'm saying is that even the mild rhetoric at this stage is
troubling, because I have a pretty good idea where it's headed.

~~~
murbard2
It is not a sensible idea.

First of, people will be able to go around your DRM by patching the firmware,
or spoofing the data coming from the GPS.

Second, your proposal would require the GPS to be always on. Not every drone
needs a GPS, and not every drone needs the battery drain of using a GPS all
the time.

~~~
tormeh
But it would prevent some frat guys from doing something stupid. Of course
hard-core criminals and the mafia will always have access to dangerous things,
but that doesn't mean restricting access for the small-timers and the
stupid/drunk is not worthwhile.

You can't always win, but you can win 95% of the time.

~~~
murbard2
Stupid frat guys aren't going to fly explosive laden drones over restricted
areas. However, _everyone_ will have to pay the cost of this stupid DRM as it
slows down operations and sucks battery. Worse, if it's made mandatory, it
might stifle open source hardware.

The blind urge to control and regulate is one of the most destructive force in
the economy.

------
b6
Yeah, this worries me. I think we're probably counting down the final months
before the first time someone is assassinated via civilian drone. It could be
trained to keep its distance until it recognizes its target's face, and then
approach very fast and detonate explosive when close enough. The attack could
be complete before anyone realizes anything is wrong.

One defense might be to have your own fleet of anti-drone drones, and hope
that they're faster and more aggressive than the attacker's. Another might be
to place a rifle under the control of a CV system. Both options seem awful to
me, and inevitable.

~~~
codeduck
Lasers would be more effective. 1W and above lasers are readily available on
the open market, and output more than enough power to fuse or burn out any
optics that are not shielded.

~~~
flyinglizard
Lasers are slow to impact (unless using an obscene amount of power) and
require precise tracking of the target over time (because they're slow).

~~~
codeduck
Conversely, it is far easier to hit a moving target with a laser than it is to
hit a moving target with a projectile. With a projectile, you have to aim
where the target is projected to be, whereas with a laser you aim where it is
now.

CIWS systems and fighter cannon are gatling guns precisely because the
probability of any single round hitting a small, moving target is low.

If all you need to do is overload the optical circuits of a drone, a 1W laser
is sufficient. Whether you kill the drone by incinerating it in midair or kill
it by causing it to crash due to loss of orientation, the result is the same.

~~~
hga
A lot of CIWS systems are missle based: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-
in_weapon_system#Missile...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-
in_weapon_system#Missile_systems) And the US and Germany are moving from
Gatling gun based ones to a "Rolling Airframe Missile" that as I read it is
self-guided once fired:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile)
Needless to say, using blast fragmentation warheads near crowds is sub-
optimal.

This really sounds like a job for Death Rays, err, the laser finally getting a
serious workout as a kill mechanism.

~~~
codeduck
Or hunter-killer drones that can close in and fire some sort of directed
fragmentation / shaped charge warhead? That might be a viable alternative,
especially once 3d fabrication reaches an acceptable maturity.

------
pjc50
Doesn't even require explosives. It's more like the laser pointer threat to
aircraft; all it needs is for someone to fly a reasonably solid drone into a
jet engine on takeoff to achieve a major air disaster. This has come close to
happening by accident at least once (drone near Heathrow).

~~~
dingaling
> to fly a reasonably solid drone into a jet engine on takeoff to achieve a
> major air disaster

Any modern turbine engine can swallow vast quantities ice without much of an
issue. I think the baseline is in the region of 500 kilos of ice in 1 minute.
A small commercial drone won't make much of an impact to an engine that can
fly through a hailstorm without burping.

Edit: the abuse a modern engine endures for certification:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTKfFxwpbUU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTKfFxwpbUU)

And if it did, any commercial aircraft certificated since the late 1940s will
survive an engine failure on take-off, and continue to climb.

~~~
tzs
Yet sometimes a single bird will take out an engine:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE)

Modern engines are designed to contain the damage, and multi-engine jets are
designed to be able to maintain control, climb to a safe altitude, and return
to the airport with an engine out, so flying a small drone into an engine
probably won't cause a major disaster, but it will cause a lot of disruption
as the plane declares an emergency and returns to the airport, and cost a lot
of money to repair or replace the engine.

One of the suggested videos for that one was interesting. It's a video from a
forward facing camera in an F-16 as it gets hit by a bird, which shuts down
the engine. The pilot tries for a while to restart, fails, ejects, and the
plane crashes:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN_Zl64OQEw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN_Zl64OQEw)

------
jason46
Really, the Honeybee helicopter is an Air Force drone?? I had one of those 4-5
years ago and was lucky to keep it in the air for 30 seconds. Its the heli in
the article with a purple tailboom and training-gear.

I was eating somewhere that had CNN on TV and they were discussing the use of
rockets to take out civilian drones. Not which part of that scenario is more
dangerous.

I'm not sure this is sensationalism with amazing ignorance or are people
really this dumb and crazy(I usually avoid mainstream news).

~~~
gambiting
I honestly thought that was Lama V3 without a canopy. These have been
available for years, and yeah, controlling one is a huge feat, the battery
life is around 10 minutes and they can lift absolutely nothing. It's a toy
essentially. I used to be really interested in R/C helicopters years ago, but
it is(or used to be) a very expensive hobby. Usually you spend few hundred
dollars on a helicopter only to crash it on the very first day(it's just
inevitable) and then you just keep on spending money on parts. It's most
definitely not a "drone" like the quadrocopters are, not any more than R/C
electric cars are.

Edit: that's a lama V3 if you were wondering: [http://www.dx.com/p/e-sky-
lama-v3-r-c-helicopter-1166](http://www.dx.com/p/e-sky-lama-v3-r-c-
helicopter-1166)

~~~
jason46
The lama is a coax heli. This is the heli in the article with training gear.
[http://www.xheli.com/2blhokirtf.html](http://www.xheli.com/2blhokirtf.html)

------
ecocentrik
"The American public largely hates domestic use of drones, and only 3 percent
are “very likely” to buy one this year, according to a recent Reuters American
Insights poll."

Huh? Hate is a very strong word for a technology that the "public" planned to
showcase during a big collage football game but was shut down by the FAA.
[http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-
michiga...](http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-
michigan/wolverines/2014/09/19/michigan-football-drones-faa-
bloomberg/15894245/)

I have no doubt that the FAA, "hates" the domestic use of drones but the
public keeps finding tons of incredible uses for them, which seems to be
complicating the security issue. The security issue is clear, even if you
could jam the whole frequency spectrum how do you deal with possibly
disrupting emergency medical care, package delivery, surveillance... This
article grossly oversimplifies the security issue. Garbage.

------
ihnorton
Can someone explain why this is an issue _now_? Is it ubiquity and reduced
cost, or is there some fundamental advance that I am unaware of? From a
layman's perspective, I feel like high-performance RC planes and copters have
been available in kit form for well over 30 years.

~~~
hga
Well, an errant drone recently crash landed on the White House grounds:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=drone+white+house+grounds](https://www.google.com/search?q=drone+white+house+grounds)

------
lsjroberts
> Like the car bomb, the drone bomb could become a cheap, ubiquitous and
> anonymous way to deliver explosives.

Should we ban cars as well then?

------
acd
I'm sure jamming Wifi and GPS will have fun effects on drones as is jamming
common frequencies for radio controllers at 72Mhz will also have fun effects
of crashed drones.

Not sure if this is possible but actually if you make a broad frequency
listener with software controlled radio then you can try and just jam all
local heard frequencies with a stronger noise signal.

------
throwawayornot
[http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Decision-Daniel-
Suarez/dp/0451417...](http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Decision-Daniel-
Suarez/dp/0451417704)

