8 ms·

I wonder how long it will be until a specific anti-drone gun is invented. Seems like there will be a strong market for one soon.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
GPS attack, broadcast bogus GPS signals to it. Make it fly itself into the ground, or just stall out and crash.
- paganel 14y ago
  And then you'll be labeled as being a "terrorist". I wish I was kidding but I'm afraid that's where the US is heading.
  - icegreentea 14y ago
    Well, maybe the label of terrorist is a bit extreme. But why the hell should you be able to maliciously broadcast an incorrect GPS signal with the intent of destruction of property (which may btw, put other bystanders in harms way as well) not be viewed as some sort of... at least incorrect act. It is pretty sad that they jump to the label terrorist. But it's not the least reasonable use of the label. In any case, such an attack is unlikely to work. The crash into the ground is least likely to work since most drones will likely have an independent altitude information. The stall method may work - if the drone has no INS and the operator is asleep.
    - rthomas6 14y ago
      I think you'd be more likely to get in trouble with the FCC for illegal broadcasting.
      - jacalata 14y ago
        How far does FCC jurisdiction extend exactly?
        dalke 14y ago
        How far does US jurisdiction extend exactly?
        lifeisstillgood 14y ago
        12 nautical miles out from the low-water mark. US influence extends further.
        dalke 14y ago
        I of course was being flippant, but if you want to bring reality in to the mix then your answer isn't complete. I believe you are only talking about international waters. For example, Boumediene v. Bush establishes that the US has "complete jurisdiction and control" over Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, even though Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty. And US jurisdiction in parts of Antarctica is .. complicated. http://219mag.com/2011/03/23/u-s-government-fails-to-protect-its-workers-in-sovereignless-antarctica/ http://219mag.com/2011/03/23/u-s-government-fails-to-protect... .
        sp332 14y ago
        Exactly is a constant legal dispute :) However, the FCC pretty unarguably has authority over use of radio spectra, especially when that use is malicious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC#Regulatory_powers_and_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC#Regulatory_powers_and_enfo... They get to determine who gets to use what spectrum, where, at what power, and for what purposes.
        jacalata 14y ago
        My point was more that poaching rhinos does not really happen in US territory, and the FCC is an American agency with no international authority that I am aware of.
      - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
        If they caught you. They'd need to spend a lot of effort to do so, or be very lucky.
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    Yes, of course, I have the same fear. Some might think you a terrorist for merely conceiving of such things. But, I think it's easier to evade detection while making the GPS attack, than by firing at it with a rifle, in which case it could potentially take a photograph of you in the act. Not to mention the possibility of stray rifle bullets flying through the air, and wounded drones crashing uncontrollably.
icegreentea 14y ago
Oky, so I've actually had a really hard time finding out what type of drones they're using. What I did get is this report - with some pictures and stats: http://www.iapf.org/images/documents/niassa.pdf http://www.iapf.org/images/documents/niassa.pdf Perhaps someone else can identify it, but from it's specs, it looks like it can probably fly reasonably high... if it can manage 6-8 hours at 400km range, it looks like it kind of slots in somewhat below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScanEagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScanEagle in terms of performance (and cost). From that guess, I'm thinking that this sucker is flying well over a mile high, which makes most gun approaches (unless they brought in a whole anti-aircraft platform...) pretty unfeasible. In any case, the cost of shooting down one of these would be pretty high - you would almost certainly need a weapon with guidance somehow (ie, a missile, which is going to really cut into your profit margins), extreme luck and patience, or lug around anti-aircraft platforms... which might not actually be out of the picture. One of the things this article doesn't really tap into is how the nature of the poachers themselves are changing. The poachers themselves are becoming more militarized (as are the wardens now), partly due to the hilarious amounts of money poaching generates - it apparently, they represent a significant revenue stream for various African Paramilitary groups. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/rhino-horn-crisis-and-the-darknet http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/rhino-horn-crisis-and-the-d... In any case, like most illict trades, constraining the supply rarely makes the problem go away - you gotta shutdown the demand somehow.
- apawloski 14y ago
  Wow, that's the first time I've ever seen that figure (for rhino horn). We were doing programs for totally different animals, and presumably different markets, but the magnitude of that number is completely contrary to our experience. Only further evidence that one-size-fits-all solutions are not always as generalized as they might seem.
- Someone 14y ago
  I would not use a rocket. If you can see or hear that drone, you can fly your own drone into it, or have it explode nearby it. Such a attacker drone would not need 20 hours endurance, so it would be a lot cheaper. That "If you can see or hear that drone" probably is where the problem lies, but that might be solved by having your drone listen for the distinctive hum of the drone's engines. That way, you don't have to be able to continuously see that drone from the ground. Just launch your own drone; if it hears another drone, it will home in on it. Alternatively, I would try jamming the drone's signals or taking over its controls.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago

GPS attack, broadcast bogus GPS signals to it. Make it fly itself into the ground, or just stall out and crash.

paganel 14y ago
And then you'll be labeled as being a "terrorist". I wish I was kidding but I'm afraid that's where the US is heading.
- icegreentea 14y ago
  Well, maybe the label of terrorist is a bit extreme. But why the hell should you be able to maliciously broadcast an incorrect GPS signal with the intent of destruction of property (which may btw, put other bystanders in harms way as well) not be viewed as some sort of... at least incorrect act. It is pretty sad that they jump to the label terrorist. But it's not the least reasonable use of the label. In any case, such an attack is unlikely to work. The crash into the ground is least likely to work since most drones will likely have an independent altitude information. The stall method may work - if the drone has no INS and the operator is asleep.
  - rthomas6 14y ago
    I think you'd be more likely to get in trouble with the FCC for illegal broadcasting.
    - jacalata 14y ago
      How far does FCC jurisdiction extend exactly?
      - dalke 14y ago
        How far does US jurisdiction extend exactly?
        lifeisstillgood 14y ago
        12 nautical miles out from the low-water mark. US influence extends further.
        dalke 14y ago
        I of course was being flippant, but if you want to bring reality in to the mix then your answer isn't complete. I believe you are only talking about international waters. For example, Boumediene v. Bush establishes that the US has "complete jurisdiction and control" over Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, even though Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty. And US jurisdiction in parts of Antarctica is .. complicated. http://219mag.com/2011/03/23/u-s-government-fails-to-protect-its-workers-in-sovereignless-antarctica/ http://219mag.com/2011/03/23/u-s-government-fails-to-protect... .
      - sp332 14y ago
        Exactly is a constant legal dispute :) However, the FCC pretty unarguably has authority over use of radio spectra, especially when that use is malicious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC#Regulatory_powers_and_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC#Regulatory_powers_and_enfo... They get to determine who gets to use what spectrum, where, at what power, and for what purposes.
        jacalata 14y ago
        My point was more that poaching rhinos does not really happen in US territory, and the FCC is an American agency with no international authority that I am aware of.
    - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
      If they caught you. They'd need to spend a lot of effort to do so, or be very lucky.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  Yes, of course, I have the same fear. Some might think you a terrorist for merely conceiving of such things. But, I think it's easier to evade detection while making the GPS attack, than by firing at it with a rifle, in which case it could potentially take a photograph of you in the act. Not to mention the possibility of stray rifle bullets flying through the air, and wounded drones crashing uncontrollably.

icegreentea 14y ago

Oky, so I've actually had a really hard time finding out what type of drones they're using. What I did get is this report - with some pictures and stats: http://www.iapf.org/images/documents/niassa.pdf http://www.iapf.org/images/documents/niassa.pdf Perhaps someone else can identify it, but from it's specs, it looks like it can probably fly reasonably high... if it can manage 6-8 hours at 400km range, it looks like it kind of slots in somewhat below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScanEagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScanEagle in terms of performance (and cost). From that guess, I'm thinking that this sucker is flying well over a mile high, which makes most gun approaches (unless they brought in a whole anti-aircraft platform...) pretty unfeasible. In any case, the cost of shooting down one of these would be pretty high - you would almost certainly need a weapon with guidance somehow (ie, a missile, which is going to really cut into your profit margins), extreme luck and patience, or lug around anti-aircraft platforms... which might not actually be out of the picture. One of the things this article doesn't really tap into is how the nature of the poachers themselves are changing. The poachers themselves are becoming more militarized (as are the wardens now), partly due to the hilarious amounts of money poaching generates - it apparently, they represent a significant revenue stream for various African Paramilitary groups. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/rhino-horn-crisis-and-the-darknet http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/rhino-horn-crisis-and-the-d... In any case, like most illict trades, constraining the supply rarely makes the problem go away - you gotta shutdown the demand somehow.

apawloski 14y ago
Wow, that's the first time I've ever seen that figure (for rhino horn). We were doing programs for totally different animals, and presumably different markets, but the magnitude of that number is completely contrary to our experience. Only further evidence that one-size-fits-all solutions are not always as generalized as they might seem.
Someone 14y ago
I would not use a rocket. If you can see or hear that drone, you can fly your own drone into it, or have it explode nearby it. Such a attacker drone would not need 20 hours endurance, so it would be a lot cheaper. That "If you can see or hear that drone" probably is where the problem lies, but that might be solved by having your drone listen for the distinctive hum of the drone's engines. That way, you don't have to be able to continuously see that drone from the ground. Just launch your own drone; if it hears another drone, it will home in on it. Alternatively, I would try jamming the drone's signals or taking over its controls.