SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Over at Make is a report on the development of an anti-drone "rifle" by the non-profit research organisation Battelle:
In a press release from Battelle, the gun is stated to use "radio control frequency disruption technologies to safely stop drones in the air, before they can pose a threat to military or civilian safety." A video accompanying the post describes that it operates on standard GPS and ISM radio bands, allowing for it to interference [sic] with commercial UAV signals.
The original press release describes the device as the first portable, accurate, rapid-to-use counter-weapon to stop suspicious or hostile drones in flight, providing critical security protection at home and abroad and having a range of 400 meters.
However the legality of such a device is also raised in the Make article, which states that:
According to FCC regulations, federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment
...
Operation of a jammer in the United States may result in substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.
...
However, some states are proposing legislation, like in California, that would allow firefighters and authorities to take down drones if they are interfering with an emergency situation like a wildfire. Blocking approach paths to airports, hovering over fires, and flying over freeways could be considered instances where those drones can be shot down. However, whether or not officials would legally be allowed to use a radio jammer like the DroneDefender remains unclear.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday October 18 2015, @10:31PM
http://www.popsci.com/rapere-anti-drone-interceptor [popsci.com]
There are interceptor drones that just drop string into the rotors of the target drone that might be more legal.
But expect big money to make any interference with any drone illegal in the name of "Safety". It will be illegal to take down even illegal drones.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Sunday October 18 2015, @10:45PM
You should still be allowed to shoot them down. If not, ask the NRA for support, they will fight for this right ;o)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 18 2015, @10:55PM
No, the NRA would support the drone using a gun.
(Score: 3, Touché) by q.kontinuum on Monday October 19 2015, @05:04AM
Why would this be mutual exclusive? Sure the drone needs a gun as well. So you can shoot it out, and the righteous wins. May the odds be ever in your favour.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday October 18 2015, @10:46PM
Anti-drone rifles aside, what do you think of "non-profit research organisations" like Battelle? Do we need more of them? I assume they stay funded by licensing patents and interest on the 501(c)(3) charitable trust.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Monday October 19 2015, @12:48AM
Does Lawrence Livermore Lab ring a bell? It's one of several major labs Battelle has a contract to run.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2015, @12:35AM
Is this really an anti-drone device -- drones being those UAVs that the US and others are using to assassinate people and, collaterally, the many civilian euphemistic "enemy combatants" who happen to be in their vicinity -- or is it really just a device to take out the quad-copters that MSM continues to breathlessly refer to as drones?
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday October 19 2015, @01:04AM
Like military drones, some consumer drones use a mix of user and automated controls. I think it's fair to call them both drones. The consumer level type is good for violating people's privacy (as well as other legit uses) and the military drones for murder, so there is still some disparity of features.
http://www.gizmag.com/dji-phantom-ground-control-autonomous-flight/32787/ [gizmag.com]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday October 19 2015, @09:54AM
or is it really just a device to take out the quad-copters that MSM and most other people, even though I'm always correcting them, continue to breathlessly refer to as drones?
FTFY.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by goody on Monday October 19 2015, @12:59AM
It's the Remington model 12GA.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday October 19 2015, @04:18AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by goody on Monday October 19 2015, @11:43AM
If it's buzzing around my house I will, and not I'm not one of those guns and religion bitter clinger types... :-)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday October 19 2015, @01:51PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by goody on Monday October 19 2015, @08:51PM
It's not a toy, it's a weapon, and I've been using it for two decades, just not for drones. An unidentified drone in my yard isn't a toy, nor is it responsible. If it's in range, it's going down. It's that simple.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday October 19 2015, @09:20PM
It's not a toy, it's a weapon... If it's in range, it's going down. It's that simple.
Uh huh. Take a minute to picture yourself in the emergency room with a family member or a neighbor, laying in the O.R., and saying "but... but.. but.. the drone was in my yard!" That excuse will not hold water.
I implore you to be a responsible gun owner: Don't shoot at drones. You don't need to build up a list of times you're automatically gonna shoot at stuff.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by goody on Monday October 19 2015, @09:33PM
So just what is your position? All drones have free reign and can fly anywhere? I doubt that, but you seem to be saying that. I'm not an attorney and I doubt you are, either, but I'm sure the law would be on my side if I downed an unidentified drone flying in my yard and I wasn't violating any laws governing firearm use, and was firing in a safe direction. I'm not intending to do this in an unsafe manner in a suburban / urban area, if that's what you were thinking. I live in a rather rural area where firing firearms is legal and generally accepted.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday October 19 2015, @11:11PM
I doubt that, but you seem to be saying that.
You do realize we're having this discussion in a thread about using a not-firearm to take down drones, right?
So just what is your position?
I have two serious issues with your stance on this. First is that when offered a solution that involves a safer method of bringing down drones, instantly your reaction is that you want to use your gun. When pressed on this matter, instead of offering to use any sort of judgement when discharging your firearm, you declared your intent to just fire it statutorily. The picture this paints in my head is one day you're gonna hear the tell-tale whirring of rotors, leap to the air, hurriedly put on your overalls, and go runnin outside with only one boot on, then wave your gun in the air looking for a target. Even out in the boonies, where I've lived before, I'd still be worried about you being my neighbor.
My second issue is people like you making it appear okay for others. You personally might have been born with Robocop-like accuracy and happen to live in an igloo in a part of the world untouched by civilization, where there's barely a fraction of a percent of a chance anybody, even you, would ever be hurt by your gun, even if thousands of drones invaded your airspace. The fact is there are too many numpties out there looking for reasons to go a'shootin, and if you really do live out in a rural area you know deep down this is true. This is not the example you want to set, especially if you wish to pass yourself off as a responsible gun owner.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by goody on Monday October 19 2015, @11:30PM
My original comment was partially tongue-in-cheek, but yes, I will shoot down any unidentified drone in my yard, "statutorily" or whatever, and I'll do it in a safe, responsible manner. I don't speak for all gun owners, so I can't say all of them will be as safe and responsible as me. I doubt drones in my yard will be a frequent occurrence, so it doesn't make much sense for me to purchase one of these radio based anti-drone rifles, even if I could. (I actually have the RF knowledge and resources to build one.) Considering it's illegal to use a radio frequency jamming device, the shotgun approach, when used in compliance with firearms regulations and safe practices, is legal and a valid solution. So as a private citizen, the shotgun approach is the only defense available to me. Mind you, I'm not a Second Amendment wingnut, a hill billy or whatever picture you have in your mind, far from it. Whether you're able to use this solution is entirely up to where you live, what experience you have, and laws in your locality. Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 19 2015, @02:37PM
Sure you aren't. Just keep telling yourself that while you clutch your precious gun to your chest. Hoping, no, begging for someone or something to show up at your door and give you an excuse to use it.