The political and ideological discussion in the USA about gun control laws and the 2nd Amendment has been a hot topic for decades. Usually, the topic remains in a glowing, hot-ember state. The heat and light emanating from this hot-ember pulses and intensifies when fanned by the news of mass murder involving guns. As drones become more prevalent in society, I fear the hot-embers of this age-old debate will fan into flames. While one must have a license to operate either machine, that legal requirement will not deter those with harmful intent.
Putting aside the political and ideological debates, how would soylentils implement a no-fly zone for drones - especially ones with harmful payloads or in areas containing volatile substances?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ask Soylent: Drones and the Right to Bear Arms
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @11:38AM
enforce a rule that all massproduced drones are controled via EM radiation in a certain range of frequencies. (enforcing means that you go to the factories and check from time to time).
if you want to keep a certain area offlimits, pump it full of noise on that particular range of frequencies. make some estimates as to how far the boundary needs to be so that out of control drones won't end up where you don't want them, but otherwise things are pretty clear.
This only leaves you to take care of the do it yourselfers who can modify the drones to use different frequencies... and I don't think there would be that many of those.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:02PM
enforce a rule that all massproduced drones are controled via EM radiation in a certain range of frequencies.
An unauthenticated signal like that is going to be abused by people who think it is funny to push a button and watch all the aircraft scatter like cockroaches from a flashlight. The concept of a drone-b-gone signal is interesting though. What would happen for aircraft inside the zone that receive a signal that says they can't be here? Are they supposed to immediately navigate to a safe position outside of the exclusion zone? How are they going to form their route with out any kind of sensors for detecting obstacles in the environment?
When these things have autonomous operating modes they either navigate to exactly one point then land for an auto-return to home feature or they navigate by waypoint to waypoint. All of that is done open loop - no sensing is performed for obstacles, the craft will fly a straight path between where ever it is right now and where ever the next point is.
If the craft receives a new exclusion signal when none existed before should they immediately stop and hover until the pilot moves it to the safe zone? Should the craft automatically land? None of these cases are very good.
It seems rather impossible to create a device that wont allow a moron to hurt people with it but also is resilient to being abused and creating new safety hazards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:28PM
so what do they use now? Wi-fi? cell phone signals?
If I wanted a place to be drone free, for instance a playground, I would simply fill it with noise on the relevant frequencies. It doesn't matter if what they use is encrypted or not, since they can't separate it from the noise.
There are technicalities however... I don't know how much power I would have to pump in my machine in order to make a noisy enough environment (they can use directed signals, I can't).
As for "exclusion signals", that would be in software. Since software is so much easier to break than hardware, I would not rely on any company promising that their drones would listen to instructions. It also goes against the principle that once you buy something you can modify it however you please (since I assume there would be laws against changing the software). Which is wrong.
No, the only reasonable options are these: put a large, clear sign saying that drones are not allowed. If you can afford it, actually enforce that (have a sharpshooter ready, or buy a technical solution that will render the drones unusable). In both cases, if a violation is attempted, call the police and complain about tresspassing etc.
The guy who shot the drone spying on his daughters actually did just that --- he did not have a clear sign, but it was his backyard.
Getting back to the question in the summary: if you have volatile substances, then you should be able to afford a radar; when the radar detects something close enough, ask the guards to shoot it (I assume you have guards there anyway if you're dealing with volatile substances).
In the case of harmful payloads, be paranoid. Ask the drone engineers and the local bomb squad to come up with a protocol that would bring down the drone with the least danger that it would harm anyone.
In any case, I think the easiest technical solution for harmful payloads is to simply forbid the construction of drones that can carry too big a weight (no pizza delivering drones).
(Score: 4, Informative) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:41PM
so what do they use now? Wi-fi? cell phone signals?
Hmm it depends on how much of a piece of shit it is. If it is a Parrot Bebop it uses WiFi and they are trivial to attack at the 802.11 level, take over the craft, and remotely operate it instead of the pilot. I've seen a hacked Parrot that flew around, auto-hacked other Parrots, and formed a fleet of compromised aircraft. I've never heard of anyone using cell phone signals.
It seems you think that the control signal for the aircraft can be disrupted to the point where a pilot can no longer control it. When you get to machines like the DJI Phantom or any hobby class craft the radio transmitters used both frequency hopping and direct sequencing spread spectrum. If we lived in 1995 you could quite easily destroy the EM spectrum in the frequencies used by r/c transmitters but it would have been illegal because jamming is illegal and it'd be dangerous because the jammed signal would be interpreted as valid control signal and the only predictable action would be eventually the machine will hit the ground in a totally uncontrolled manner.
Right now you would have to completely destroy the entire 2.4 GHz part 15 spectrum to knock the drones out of the air. If you could even achieve it (because both forms of spread spectrum operation are jam resistant) you would also successfully kill WiFi and a bunch of other stuff around it.
I'm not just an r/c pilot I'm also a ham radio operator.
(Score: 3, Informative) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:27PM
It's not that difficult to create a drone yourself using parts from stock. Also you'd have to control all imports. And to make matters worse, with a bit of programming knowledge the drone could be programmed to fulfil a small task autonomously via GPS (unless you also yam that signal).
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:49PM
"This only leaves you to take care of the do it yourselfers who can modify the drones to use different frequencies... and I don't think there would be that many of those."
I think you are wrong in that assumption.
(Score: 5, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:03PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:15PM
Yeah, I really can't see the link there. You also need a licence to drive a car or get married. I'm not sure why drone-flying is getting lumped in with gun control instead of one of those.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:57PM
You also need a licence to drive a car or get married. I'm not sure why drone-flying is getting lumped in with gun control instead of one of those.
I now declare you man and drone. You may kiss the device.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:31PM
But buying a gun is, and buying a drone is as well. I'd assume selling a drone which has a slot to carry a gun would also be allowed (until the specific vendor is banned from selling it and the next one steps up). Therefore armed drones will probably be illegal, but those planning to use them for sinister purposes might not care all that much about legality as long as its easy to acquire.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 02 2015, @10:53PM
Buying fuel oil and fertilizer already gets you more attention than you want, especially if you don't own a farm and buy unusual quantities, of them, or split your purchases up into little loads from separate dealers.
Pay in cash? Store is on the phone before you are out of the parking lot.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday December 03 2015, @07:29AM
These chemical ingredients are still hard to produce at home unnoticed. Purely physical things (especially when the material doesn't matter much and durability is a minor concern) can be printed via 3D printer. Recipes (construction plans / blueprints) can be downloaded / shared encrypted. I'd expect if someone offers such an adapter for sale, people would know it is a bit of a risky business.
That said, even though I'm from Germany where the weapons laws are a bit stricter, and although I think they should be even stricter here, I do feel a fascination for weapons and could definitely see the appeal of a home-built, armed drone. Scary though to imagine people playing with it on a wider scale, but still fascinating.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:30PM
One does not "speak" in electricity, therefore internet communications are not covered by A1.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:17PM
While one must have a license to operate either machine
Huh?
especially ones with harmful payloads or in areas containing volatile substances?
LOL the really harmful ones will be police surveillance, military surveillance and forward arty observation, etc.
Basically we have more to fear from government operated drones than private ones, and I'm sure it'll be made illegal to interfere with big brother's drones, so good luck with that.
how would soylentils implement a no-fly zone
There's some weird cultural drift where the term no-fly zone has drifted into signalling to each other how we all agree celebrities are a more equal animal than the rest of us equal animals so we'll demonstrate solidarity with each other by disparagement in public. But where the actual term comes from is men with guns and missiles shooting down anything without their IFF code, and the opposition can figure it out by observing executive orders and take their chances flying, or not. And that's the only way no-fly zones will be implemented. I would imagine in the hood, the locals will shotgun police drones making a defacto no fly zone. Possibly countries will declare they're a no fly zone for foreign country spy drones, and shoot them down. The only way to implement will be use of weapons, everything else is just social media talk that won't do anything.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:30PM
Right - no license necesary to purchase or to own a weapon in the state of Arkansas. Concealed carry requires a license, but UNCONCEALED carry does not. I'm a believer in "Constitutional carry" - that is, the second amendment is my license. I'm not going to ask the sheriff or anyone else if I can have a weapon, or when or where I can carry it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:47PM
I personally want anybody who wants to carry/own/use a firearm to have a license. Similar to a drivers license.
That is, I want a firearm license to indicate the holder knows:
- which end is the business end
- how to store firearms/ munitions safely.
- how to carry them safely
- how to fire them without injuring themselves
- other firearms best practices.
- some reasonable belief the holder has mental facilities to understand the risks
There is risk associated with firearms. I want some assurance users of firearms know what it is they are using.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @10:13PM
Then advocate for a constitutional amendment.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:26PM
Putting aside the political and ideological debates, how would soylentils implement a no-fly zone for drones
Some manufacturers already have implemented exclusion zones baked into the device firmware. DJI for instance loads up the Phantom with airports and other high profile things like the White House (after a drone landed on the lawn) and when approaching the exclusion zones they'll smack against a virtual wall and refuse to move closer to the zone. I don't recall what happens if the craft finds itself inside the zone through a surprise - it might just elect to decrease power, descend, and hope it does not land on anything but it has no sensors for detecting objects. It knows it has landed when it no longer descends. My NAZA controller (not on a Phantom) will touch the ground twice to double check it is on something firm before it'll cut the power to the motors. I know its behavior because I perform lost signal tests to make sure my craft will return to a known point if my transmitter dies instead of something like cutting the motors and just plummet out of the air.
The FAA currently publishes temporary flying exclusion zones depending on where the President of the United States and other high profile areas. These are spread through announcements and when POTUS visits a city no one can fly any r/c craft anywhere near the city. Violations are enforced with cops and at the Federal level. Getting wind of these temporary exclusion zones takes paying attention and is a pain in the butt. I believe now FAA has a phone app that pilots can use to validate the temporary no fly zones that exist around them and that is a good step in the right direction.
When it comes to automatically telling a drone that it can't be in a spot the problem is not easy. You will find that the things that can be done will decrease the safety that exists when flown by a competent pilot and in a way where a competent pilot can't do anything about it. If making a device where the competent pilots can be overruled by a nefarious actor is improving safety because the average pilot is so dangerous that is a sad state of affairs.
I realize that most pilots can't get their drone to do anything like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pki4TzdGDPY [youtube.com] but I can. The DJI Phantom can do it too with a good pilot at the controls. If pilots would learn how to actually fly the things instead of point and crash there would not be a problem.
How would I implement an exclusion zone? Through punishing people who risk injury to others and damage to property. Aka - enforce laws that already restrict the behavior.
Oh another exclusion zone technology is the psycho bitch bot: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/quadrocopter-pilot-gets-attacked-by-drone-hating-woman/ [arstechnica.com]. No I don't think the psycho bitch is a good technology but it does go to show that knowing exactly where you can safely fly also benefits drone pilots because the public is dumb, not just the pilots in the news.
(Score: 2) by jmoschner on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:30PM
"No fly zones" would probably be enforced like most areas, either built in software with gps, or simply through fines if/when a drone is caught in an area it shouldn't be. Much like with any other moving vehicle.
For example, one may not be allowed to drive their car through a playground or their our neighbor's yard but they could physically do so and if caught would face punishment.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:52PM
or simply through fines if/when a drone is caught in an area it shouldn't be. Much like with any other moving vehicle.
For example, one may not be allowed to drive their car through a playground or their our neighbor's yard but they could physically do so and if caught would face punishment.
I concur that this would probably be sufficient. There is an issue in that cars have people in them and r/c craft can be operated semi-anonymously. Being members of the Internet it should be obvious what anonymity can do to a human. I'm not yet sure if r/c aircraft are different enough to a car that this becomes a major factor but I know from experience the risks are not immediately obvious as a pilot. One has to learn to recognize dangerous activity then cease to do it again. There is learning from mistakes that happens and close calls - I suspect these pilots in the news are not backing off and learning from mistakes. This might make them different than cars as the threat of injury to the pilot is nearly non-existent.
It definitely looks like r/c aircraft are having their Eternal September [wikipedia.org] right now. Except that unlike AOL, DJI makes a cutting edge technology product that is leader in the pack in terms of quality and features. As a serious hobbyist some of my best quality and well engineered gear came from DJI though I have assembled my stuff from a kit instead of buying a turnkey product like the Phantom.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:50PM
I'd assume the only relevant implementation is an imperative one, which enforces the no-fly rule even without cooperation of the drone. If someone doesn't want to collaborate, he could ignore any transmitted hints and commands by building his own drone or by importing from a country not participating in the collaboration.
Imperative could be a sentry gun firing a directed EMP or maybe some rubber-rounds. For volatile substances, such measures could be justified at the perimeter. As a nerd, I'd probably prefer to implement my own "air-force" dropping thin strings or nets on the "hostile" drones, or, more practical, have thin, nearly invisible net over my garden; it doesn't have to be permanently, after the first couple of drones got entangled and destroyed beyond repair, word will go around and people will stop invade my privacy via drone.
Last but not least, most drones are remote controlled, and dumb pranksters might be sufficiently repelled by strict laws.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:00PM
more practical, have thin, nearly invisible net over my garden
You've got a problem with drones in your garden? Are they microdrones showing up in fleets? I've heard of gangs of these things running around causing havoc in gardens and flower beds. Here's a documentary on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNVRMU--8vA [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:37PM
The question was not "Do you mind strangers drones invading your privacy" but rather "how would you go on to prevent [...]".
I wasn't yet bothered by any drones, if it's playing kids I probably wouldn't mind, if someone would actually try to annoy / spy on me I'd probably retaliate... But its very hypothetical for me.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Informative) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:01PM
if it's playing kids I probably wouldn't mind, if someone would actually try to annoy / spy on me I'd probably retaliate... But its very hypothetical for me.
I would never tolerate an unknown r/c aircraft anywhere around me, kids or not. Your biggest threat is from being hit by the craft for some reason or another. If your neighbors are annoying you with their quadcopter then knocking their quadcopter out of the air isn't going to change their shit attitude towards you.
In theory someone could hover a drone up a few hundred feet and keep an eye on your property and watch the dots that are people move around. Go Pros and other action cameras that are suitable for going on a machine that costs less than a few thousand dollars have no mechanical zoom capability.
For a Go Pro to spy on you to any useful degree, the type where they could catch you doing something embarrassing, they have to be really close. Close enough you could probably smack the drone out of the air yourself with your hands and if you were wearing heavy welding gloves the props probably would not even break the skin. You might have a bruise. Close enough you could get a net on it. If they hover far enough up you can't reach them reasonably they can't see much.
A spy machine drone is about $1k starter for the air frame, add in another grand for motors and control system, and another grand for a motion stabilization gimbal that can handle a good camera, and of course the camera itself. Then you would have useful levels of zoom where details like your dick in your hand show up instead of just being a dot. It would be the class of machine that the AP and BBC use.
To recap: spying on you costs many thousands of dollars. If you neighbors invest that much money to watch you or fuck with you good luck. That's some serious fucked up neighbor. If someone has got their drone flying around your property and you don't know who they are then they are dumb or fucking with you. Either case you don't want that thing near you. But they aren't spying on you unless the craft is hovering right outside your window. Then I'd suggest the appropriate course of action is full Goatse.cx on the thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:55PM
> Putting aside the political and ideological debates
Yeah, right.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:03PM
Last I checked it was illegal for the us govt to require such a thing. As a matter of fact it's even one of the restrictions of govt called out specifically in the amendments to our constitution.
Get your facts straight and then start making inane correlations between unrelated topics.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @04:14PM
There should be a government license to speak freely, or to worship as you please.
It's just common sense reform. Now before you get all worked up, understand that nobody's going to take your right to speak or worship away. We just want to stop the spread of dangerous words and religions by the uninformed and people with mental instabilities so that nobody else gets harmed.
We need sensible restrictions on the first amendment. It was written in a time when people just didn't have the kind of emotions that we have today. They didn't know that words really do hurt, and religions really are dangerous to the public. It's time to re-think that. It's time to demand action.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:33PM
Classes going well at Missou?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:34PM
Get the fuck out of my safe space.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:06PM
All I want to know is what is the legal status of strapping a gun to a drone?
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:11PM
I would imagine it is as illegal as shoving fireworks up your ass. Specifically: who cares if it is legal this is a very stupid idea. And its been done before. [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:17PM
If I can reach them with conventional weapons they are too close.
Definitely, should not be allowed with 100 meters of any people, residences, etc.
They have already maimed an infant.[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/toddler-loses-eyeball-after-errant-drone-slices-it-in-half/]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday December 02 2015, @03:35PM
That is an overreaction. How many people are killed by cars every day that are driven by licensed drivers? Read that article you linked and you'll see it was a terrible accident. The family even forgave the drone pilot.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:21PM
I wouldn't call his not wanting a drone flying above his head an "overreaction". It's more common sense as you have no idea how skilled the pilot is. Flying anything is much more difficult than driving and just look at how many people are killed by cars every day in the United States alone. While it's nice that the family forgave the pilot, that shouldn't mean he should get off scott free. You hit someone with your car, doesn't matter that they forgive you, because you're insurance will likely be paying for their hospital bill. You will probably also receive a ticket. Most likely reckless endangerment or something like that. The drone pilot feeling bad for hurting the baby just shows that he's a human being. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences, such as at the very least a ticket for reckless endangerment.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:47PM
It sounds like the pilot is considered "good" or "advanced" by everyone involved. It also sounds like he was flying over his own property. But the pilot was stupid for flying it where a crash could send it into another person (unless he warns them). If the family forgave the pilot then the pilot should "get off scott free". Because we don't know shit compared to those people directly involved. Let the family decide what is an appropriate response to the accident. Giving out tickets is for breaking the law and it doesn't sound like he did anything illegal. Please correct me if i'm wrong though.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:36PM
Putting aside the political and ideological debates
To me this is a bit of a strange comment to make. If someone subscribes to an ideology they pretty much can't put it away. And most people do subscribe to some sort of ideology at least in some areas, although they may differ on what measures they are or are not willing to take to impose it on someone else. Here we are discussing basically what laws and what measures of force should exist to create a drone no-fly zone. For almost everybody that is going to come down to some sort of bedrock principles of right and wrong that will be used to determine the issue - an ideology.
Basically when people use terms like this, they are denigrating the points of view that don't match theirs. Their view is moderate and well-reasoned - others are "ideological."
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday December 02 2015, @03:30PM
Seriously, there are too many dangerous people with either guns or drones. We should be restricting both.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @03:58PM
And there are too many stupid people with the ability to speak their mind. Let's restrict that as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:02PM
I know being clean shavin is the norm now, but did not think it was a problem to have hairy, "bear" arms.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:19PM
I thought it was about tshirts
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:13PM
The link between RTKBA and flying a drone is kinda weak but lets run with it. About the only way I can link the two is to go to first principles. We enshrine a RTKBA because our country is based on the ideas that the people are sovereign and can be trusted to control dangerous but useful objects. A drone can be dangerous, just like a firearm, an automobile and even random household chemicals. All should be permitted to free people who aren't under a judgment of impaired mental function. Misuse should be punished.
Using a drone in a public place might someday require licensing in teh same way we require it for an automobile on public roads and some states require a demonstration of basic knowledge to concealed carry. We should not be licensing the mere ownership of a drone, especially since it is so easy to build them from a kit. What next, the insanity we have in the weapons world where one fairly easily machined part is declared a 'firearm' and bears the serial number while the rest can be freely bought online and shipped free of regulation?