Forget the zombie apocalypse, here's the real danger coming: DRONES!

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by CCIP

You know, given how a certain other three-letter US government agency uses drones abroad, it shouldn't be surprising that some terrorists might've already contemplated the idea of using them to shoot at people. They probably have more experience than anybody, being on the wrong end of shooty drones most of the time

I keep waiting for a downed drone to become Frankenstein.

"Selfie time for now. But once we get this bad boy patched up---USA got big trouble!"

[Stealhead]

A Pakistani man I'm guessing seeing as that is where most have been flying for the past decade. You never know maybe he's thinking "just think of the number of TV stations I could get if I could get this thing flying again".

Most likely they probably scrap the things or I'd not be surprised if the US government pays a reward for locating downed ones. Good thing is the technology is only partly there and they are very unlikely to replicate the control network a drone like a Predator requires.

They are big into low cost high return weapons the IED for example.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by vienna

I think you're gonna get a call from DARPA at best or the NSA at worst

Highly unlikely. Everything I mentioned is an off the shelf Arduino based system. Arduino was designed so electrical engineering students could do advanced motion control and robotics projects and eat dinner, not have to choose between one or the other for budget reasons. The Arduino Nano (I have 5 or 6 here on my desk, and a couple UNO's) is only .75" x 1.7", about the size of a USB stick. It has 20 ports or so that can control that many different sensor inputs or outputs, like motors or servos. It is programmed using C++, only costs about $10, and is sold on Amazon (but better prices are found elsewhere).

Hardware is trivial and plentiful. Quadcopter parts are Trivial and plentiful. Coding an Arduino to function as a Flight controller, while not trivial, is not overly complicated, it usually comes down to how good your PID algorithm is. Adding the GPS is trivial. And intertial guidance, while not trivial by any means, would be easily doable for a coder who understands the theory of it. And since the concept of inertial navigation has been around for quite a while, that's not top secret.

Arduino is the flag bearer for the revolution we are seeing in the automation and miniaturization of our electronic devices. Flight Control boards (they sell them ready pregprogrammed) are just another form of modern micro controller. Raspberry Pi, Edison, and other's are just other forms of these MCU's. There is a Quote the arduino group uses: The question isn't what can arduino do, but what can it not do? Read throough the arduino forums and look at all the really amazing projects people are doing with these things.

/thread tangent

[Oberon]

A lot of people talking about terrorists putting C4 on drones...well, surely the key thing would be to stop terrorists getting C4? As far as I know, outside of America at least, it's not exactly an easy thing to get. Fertiliser based explosives are the more likely type to use and you need to have a bigger amount of them to get the sort of explosion that you would need to cause multiple casualties, I believe that's why it's used more in car bombs. There's Acetone peroxide but you've only got to look at that the wrong way and it explodes in your face. Quite how the 7/7 bombers managed not to blow themselves up is anyones guess, the chaps that tried the same thing a week later didn't have as much luck.
That being said, shaped explosives like a nail bomb are a possibility, but again you'd need a device that's not exactly small and the average cheap drone would struggle to take off with it taped to its belly, and most of the time people use nail bombs in dustbins and the like in order to contain the explosion until it reaches maximum potential and destroys the bin.
Outside of the western world, out in Syria and the like, then yes, all bets are off since explosives are easy to get, but in the western world, or at the very least in western Europe, intelligence agencies tend to keep an eye on who is buying what, and if you're found to be buying large amounts of the stuff needed to make a bomb, then your name goes onto a list and the house across the street from you gets new occupants with cameras and telescopes.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

A Kentucky man shot down a drone and/or quadcopter as some people are calling it while it was hovering over his backyard.

By Ars Techincia The way William Merideth sees it, it’s pretty clear-cut: a drone flying over his backyard was a well-defined invasion of privacy, analogous to a physical trespassing.
Not knowing who owned it, the Kentucky man took out his shotgun and fired three blasts of Number 8 birdshot to take the drone out.
"It was just right there," he told Ars. "It was hovering, I would never have shot it if it was flying. When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that's not going to work. I know they're neat little vehicles, but one of those uses shouldn’t be flying into people's yards and videotaping."

Merideth was later arrested on the charges of criminal mischief and wanton endangerment.

Now the question is, is what Merideth did right or wrong? Personally I would agree with what he did, that using a drone/quadcopter is such a manner is improper and an invasion of privacy seeing as how the owner of the drone didn't seek Merideth's permission to use his drone in or around Merideth's property. On the other hand it's also impossible to know, without asking what purpose the owner of the drone was using it for. Was he simply flying it around taking videos and photos, or was he using it to case the joint? Here is a link to the article itself: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ken...ard/ar-AAdGg2x

As drones, or quadcopters or whatever you care to call them are rapidly becoming more and more popular there is of course going to be problems caused by those who use them, most notably their use around commercial airports where they are a hazard to all types of aircraft and in the case of the wildfires in California where one fire jumped the highway and burned some 21 vehicles, firefighting planes and helicopter where unable to fight the fires because of drones in the area. There have also been some instances of drones being used to smuggle contraband into prisons. It's only a matter of time before legislation is passed governing the usage of these machines. I also have a second question, what do you think would be some common sense laws regarding the use of drones?

[Oberon]

I think it should depend on altitude, I mean above a certain altitude airspace laws must qualify, and that means that shooting down an aircraft, be it a passenger jet or an unmanned drone is an illegal act.
Below a certain altitude though it would perhaps class as trespass in which case the gentleman in question was within his rights to protect himself and his property.

Of course, if one does go by those laws then you have to look at helicopters and their landing sites. If a medical helicopter lands in someones backyard to attend to a casualty on the street nearby, is it trespassing and would the owner of the backyard have the right to order the helicopter into the air at gunpoint?

[Platapus]

If he thought someone was operating his drone in an illegal manner, the preferred action is to call the police.

That's what you do when you suspect that a crime is being committed.

Since the drone was not any type of direct threat to this guy, discharging his shotgun in that manner was unnecessary.

Why are there people with guns who seem eager to enforce the law like this? Call the police and register a complaint

It would have been no different had he been standing in my backyard.

Well, you can't shoot people for trespassing either.

You can only shoot people when they pose a direct and immediate threat of violence to you.

People like this are not helping responsible gun owners

"The people that own the drones and the people that hate guns are the only ones that disagree with what I did," he said.

Well, no. I don't own any drones and I like guns... and I disagree with what you did.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Originally Posted by Platapus

If he thought someone was operating his drone in an illegal manner, the preferred action is to call the police.

That's what you do when you suspect that a crime is being committed.

Since the drone was not any type of direct threat to this guy, discharging his shotgun in that manner was unnecessary.

Why are there people with guns who seem eager to enforce the law like this? Call the police and register a complaint

I see some problems with this, sure you could call the police and complain about a drone hovering over your yard but what are the police going to do? It's not like drones have registration numbers like cars and planes do, and in this case you nor the police have any idea who the owner is, plus the drone could of flown away long before the police would show up, if they would show up at all. Also as I had pointed out unless you find the owner of the drone and ask them what they're doing with it, or they come to you and tell you then there's no way of knowing what the drone is being used for.

[vienna]

It boils down to a question of privacy and the rights of and expectations of individual privacy. If a person came on to your personal property uninvited with a camera or some other recording gear while a you or a member of your household were engaged in personal activities, took pictures and posted them to the Internet or otherwise disseminated them, that would be a severe breach of personal privacy, one I don't think very many people would tolerate. We would look on this as criminal trespass, invasion of property, and any number of other offenses, depending on laws in your local jurisdiction. Now, you may see the person on your property and, I believe legally so, arm your self in some way and force the person off your property or, perhaps, force them to stay until proper police authorities arrive. However, it appears you do not have that ability when it comes to drones. Notice I said "ability"; I do believe you should have the right be able to treat a drone in the same manner as if it were a person violating your privacy on your property. In the case of a human violator, taking them out is not an option unless the is a physical threat to the property holder or their household members. But a drone is not a person, and it is capable of doing more harm than a person walking onto your property. Is the drone armed? Is it carrying some sort of explosive or chemical threat? Is it perhaps incendiary in some way? The possibilities of real threat are too varied to ignore if you are in such a position...

Perhaps the best solution is to deal with "hobbyist" drones in the same manner as model rocketry. Persons may engage in their hobby in designated areas away from any possible immediate danger or implied danger to others not engaged in that hobby. Fly them in unpopulated parks, remote areas and such; keep them away from homes and other private areas...


<O>

[em2nought]

I think drones might be a good way to sell more air rifles. Of course that will up the ante, and drone operators will start strapping kittens on board to sway opinion their way. lol

Who wants to be responsible for shooting down Hello Kitty?

[Jimbuna]

Agree with Platapus in #3

[Betonov]

Just throw a net on it.
It will jam the rotors and prove that the drone was close enough to be a violation of privacy and the electronics would survive so police specialists can try to track the owner.

That will be my first anti-drone product

[Wolferz]

The police should be investigating the drone owner/operator for being a peeping Tom and a possible pedophile. There were two twelve year old girls in the mans' yard when Snoopy came flying over with his camera.
The air space above a country usually belongs to that country and they protect it. Why should it be any different than Joe Publics' air space?

Until drones become licensed and registered vehicles like planes and helicopters, I consider them fair game if the pilot wants to watch me barbecue.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Just throw a net on it.
It will jam the rotors and prove that the drone was close enough to be a violation of privacy and the electronics would survive so police specialists can try to track the owner.

That will be my first anti-drone product

Someone beat you to it I'm afraid...

http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Net-Gun/

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Someone beat you to it I'm afraid...

http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Net-Gun/

No, someone just gave me unpatented plans