The Trump Administration Wants To Be Able To Track and Hack Your Drone (fastcompany.com) 216
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Trump administration wants federal agencies to be able to track, hack, or even destroy drones that pose a threat to law enforcement and public safety operations, The New York Times reports. A proposed law, if passed by Congress, would let the government take down unmanned aircraft posing a danger to firefighting and search-and-rescue missions, prison operations, or "authorized protection of a person." The government will be required to respect "privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties" when exercising that power, the draft bill says. But records of anti-drone actions would be exempt from public disclosure under freedom of information laws, and people's right to sue over damaged and seized drones would be limited, according to the text of the proposal published by the Times. The administration, which would not comment on the proposal, scheduled a classified briefing on Wednesday for congressional staff members to discuss the issue.
Already true. (Score:2)
Just try and fly a drone anywhere near someone with secret service protection. Watch what happens.
Don't actually do this, you will end the day in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Go anywhere near the president when he is outdoors, with a RF spectrum analyzer. Then just turn on a remote control radio, of any kind. 'They' will have a bunch of questions based on the assumption you were testing the defenses. Don't expect to sleep at home that night.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
> oversized
> The drone, which was about two feet [nytimes.com] in diameter and weighed about two pounds
Yeah, nah.
Okay... (Score:3)
Look, I loathe most everything that the Trump administration has done thus far, but as written, this doesn't sound too bad.
If some moron is hindering fire-fighting operations with a drone, then yes, there should be ways to deal with it without having to worry about the drone owner threatening a lawsuit.
Now, I object to to the records of such anti-drone activities being exempt from freedom of information laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I object to to the records of such anti-drone activities being exempt from freedom of information laws.
Why?
Personally I'm fine with them developing capabilities to destroy drones and not telling me the technical details about how it works. I'm fine if they want to blast a drone out of the sky, just as long as they are not out using it on a whim and the destroyed drone is someplace it's not allowed, just make sure it's clear where I may and may not fly.
If my device strays from the airspace it's permitted to be in, it's my fault it gets destroyed, assuming I had ample opportunity to know I wasn't allowed to
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah, because super hackable drones that can be taken over by anyone at any time are a great idea. I mean no criminal hacker would hack that drone first, in mid air, secure it from hacking and then fly it at the head of the target, leaving the owner of the drone to blame and the incompetent police left looking like idiots. Why, oh, why, does it need to be explained to computer illiterate types why computers should not be super hackable, why back doors are a disaster waiting to happen (take note of two re
Re: (Score:2)
It's not quite that easy.
Here in California, we're getting the idiots with the drones that are flying above the wildfires (because, let's face it, they are pretty impressive). The problem is that those drones are sitting right where the airplanes that are dropping water on the fire want to go.
So they're a bit high up for water hoses.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a wide range of commercial drones that shockingly are not armed with military munitions. Technically, those $10 quad-copter remote controlled toys you can buy at a mall kiosk are drones.
I suppose the govt doesn't want to be sued every time a police dept decides to take one down because it is harassing someone and keep an FOIA subpoena-able record of this...
Re: (Score:2)
Or the gov't doesn't want to have to explain why certain areas are no-fly zones. It is conceivable that some evil-doers could probe certain areas to see what the reaction would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but pipeline protests
So people fly over a pipeline protest, get their drones shot down, file a FOIA request and get records. Then they fly over that mystery no-fly location and get nothing. And no justification. Pretty soon a determined foe can find out exactly where all the sensitive areas are.
It's not like the pipeline protesters, May Day marchers, etc. aren't riddled with people with unrelated agendas.
Evil thrives in the dark
Next May 1, march without wearing masks.
Which is all fine (mostly) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problems start when undefined weasel-words
This is really all you had to say.
Like Stingray cell phone surveillance, the police (from FBI to local constabulary) wants the right to down and seize any drone, at any time, for reasons that will be kept from the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Take down drones that endanger firefighting and prison operations, sure. The problems start when undefined weasel-words like "authorized protection of a person" are used and rights of citizens are curtailed or eliminated.
Yeah, and part of the reason this should be a concern is, I think firefighters and prisons already have some latitude to take action when lives are at risk or there's a serious security problem. If a firefighter breaks a window to rescue someone, I don't think they get charged with destruction of private property. If prison guards damage a helicopter that someone tries to land in a prison yard without approval, I doubt they'd be in legal trouble. Admittedly I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that they've both
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not discussing rights to fly a drone... From TFS:
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Re: (Score:2)
What right does a citizen have to fly a drone? I don't see that in the constitution.
Drones are useful to militias, so they are protected under the 2nd Amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and fly drones, shall not be infringed.
Re: (Score:2)
Drones are useful to militias, so they are protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Holy shit! That's some good stuff there, actually made me lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Halfwit.
Re: (Score:3)
"Anything not proscribed is permitted."
Basically, we have the right to do anything without fear of legal repercussions, where there is no law prohibiting it.
Want to have 100 pink plastic flamingos in your front yard? There's no law against it. (HOA regulations, maybe.)
Want to cover your car (sans windshield) in Christmas lights? There's no law against it.
Want to fly a remote-controlled drone? There's no law against it. Except where prohibited by law.
That's the point here. This law would say "You can't fly d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Want to cover your car (sans windshield) in Christmas lights? There's no law against it.
[Pedant-ism warning] Most places have strict regulations on the color, placement, and quantity of lights on a vehicle. Generally though, I support your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, lights on cars are highly regulated, because they can't obscure or be confused with turn signals or brake lights.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, trucknutz that light up (usually with the turn signals) are illegal most places.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that a citizen has an explicit right to fly a drone. The 4th amendment protects the citizen against the drone (or any other belongings) being taken from him/her without a really good reason.
Re:Which is all fine (mostly) (Score:4, Insightful)
Does the constitution specifically grant you a right to breathe air?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution itself doesn't say anything about the rights of citizens. The Bill of Rights (which are amendments, not in the Constitution proper) spells out a few rights that the founders thought should be particularly safeguarded, but was never meant to be an exhaustive list of human rights that citizens hold.
The real question should be, "What right does the government have to shoot down a citizen's drone?" It doesn't say anything about shooting down drones in the Constitution. Of course, it doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Thus the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find it listed under the 9th amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus christ, don't start with that bullshit. What right do you have to clean water? I don't see that in the constitution.
You don't have a right to clean water then....
Actually, in all seriousness, the US constitution only defines the rights the government may not infringe and/or must protect. Other rights exist but they are NOT within the preview of the government to insure or protect. For instance, the individual's right to "pursue happiness" is a given, but the government is NOT responsible to ensure your happiness should you be unhappy with your life..
Re: (Score:2)
I find it particularly ironic that a great deal of folk are throwing fits about drones needing to be regulated... and yet ultralights don't seem to be an issue [sportaviationcenter.com].
"Privacy, civil rights and civil liberties" (Score:2)
We know full well how much the PGOTUS respects these things.
Re: (Score:2)
>We know full well how much the PGOTUS respects these things.
Yep, just about as much as the previous president and the several ones before him.
Sure, Net gun should do the trick (Score:2)
I don't think leaving a hack-able vulnerability is a good idea but sure why not use something like a T-shirt Canon that shoots a Net? It wouldn't be that difficult to shoot down a consumer drone and fairly safe to do so. Instead of crippling everyone with restrictions, just shoot down or catch the folks who blatantly break the rules. You don't even really need to fine because drones are pretty expensive. The loss alone should teach someone a lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is what happens when you disable a drone - gravity tends to have a say in that.
I agree that leaving a back door in place and hoping the bad guys don't copy the key is worse, but there IS a reason that net or HERF guns aren't immediately selected as the best option.
There are companies working on anti-drone drones to do a 'capture and safely ground', and I believe at least one person was working on using trained birds (which do fine for the vast majority of consumer-grade drones).
Which brings up a
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings up another issue... with the kind of payload most consumer drones are capable of lifting, they're just not a threat worth getting worked up about. There's plenty more damage you could do on the ground, a lot easily, if you were of a mind to do so.
How heavy is a timer- or remotely-opened container with enough anthrax spores to infect a few city blocks?
Re: (Score:2)
Weaponizing anthrax isn't easy or cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact I'd kind of encourage terrorists to try, since they're far more likely to kill themselves than anyone else. Horribly, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet the 'Anarchist's Cookbook' has killed at least 100 wanna be ricin makers. That was well done.
Re: (Score:2)
Most consumer drones aren't too heavy and mostly plastic the latest DJI drone (Mavic Pro) is about 2.2lb or 1KG. It'll hurt but not likely to kill you. Also if it's close enough to shoot down, it's probably too close to venue or whatever the Drone is zipping around. Another option would be a directed microwave beam which would knock it out of the sky since it's not likely very well shielded. Adding a backdoor or hacking isn't likely the easiest way of doing it and besides, it wouldn't even affect home b
Out-of-band attack on encryption? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So far as I know, drone control signals are encrypted;
So then, you don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anything about mil grade stuff (that would be encrypted, at least I hope so),
There was a story a year or so ago about drone targets detecting drone attacks by tuning in on the drone video, so what used to be in the clear is now, indeed, encrypted. But not civilian.
I've got a better idea for them: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There be something like a secondary receiver built into all drones, that when it receives the appropriate signal, causes the drone to descend and land safely
Your ignorance of the preponderance of UAV aircraft is showing. That requires a flight computer with navigation capabilities, GPS, magnetometer, and barometer along with firmware for such. Most drones are not equipped with such. Many flight controllers are open source, The most popular firmwares available are open source. Open source devs tend to frown on such government intrusion. Just because you hate a piece of technology or are ignorant to it doesn't mean the government should have a backdoor into
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your technological ignorance is showing. In order to 'home in' on a radio signal you need to triangulate on it, you can't do that from a single position.
Your technological ignorance is showing. In order to home in on a radio signal you need to know what direction it is coming from. You go that direction, and when the signal is now coming from behind you, you just passed over it.
Triangulation is just one way of doing it. When you have a vehicle that can move directly towards the signal, you don't need to triangulate.
Re: (Score:2)
"Triangulation" or direction finding can be done from a 'single' position (eg. using a Yagi is a very crude method, there are better ways these days). You're thinking of locating a single device based on the signal received by an omnidirectional receiver (eg. cell phone towers), that does indeed require multiple antenna's (although they don't have to be far apart)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not 'everyone' is a whiny bitch, so that won't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is one Congresscritter deciding that he's alarmed by what he's hearing, and *BAM*, you've got a bill being discussed in Congress.
Just ban them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just ban them. They serve no purpose except for spying on people's daughters sunbathing by the pool, based on the comments I see on Slashdot.
That's a pretty important purpose. Say hi to your daughter for me.
I don't think anybody here is fooled (Score:5, Informative)
When all the weasel words are taken into account, it quickly becomes obvious that this means, "Drones making video of police beating or killing civilians will be taken down, and you can try to get the wreckage back by talking to one of our tame judges."
Re: (Score:2)
I stand by what I said before: this is actually an attack on encryption in general. Get drone manufacturers to put backdoors in their drone control signal encryption, and you have legal precedent to make everyone else do th
Re: (Score:2)
I stand by what I said before: this is actually an attack on encryption in general.
Since it has nothing to do with encryption, no, it is not an attack on encryption.
Get drone manufacturers to put backdoors in their drone control signal encryption,
Who needs a backdoor?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with you, but I don't think you're seeing the whole picture, either. Jamming WiFi and cell service is ridiculously easy, as is denying close access to a situation. What kind of video can your cell phone get from ground level and 200 yards back? Cell phone jammers exist, and if you don't think the authorities would use them...well, I don't think for a moment you're that naive.
Don't ever make the mistake of believing people engaged in a massive power grab have only a single objective when
How would you manage to do this? (Score:2)
Sure you could probably require DJI or Gopro to include an over-ride command in their code. But how would you enforce this on an ardupilot controlled drone? Building a large scale camera platform based on a naza or ardupilot is pretty easy.
And that completely ignores all the micro racing quad flight controllers which run betaflight or KISS. Neither of those have GPS or stabilized flight systems. So you could jam the 2.4g band to take out its control signal but then you are taking out a lot more than jus
There's just one tiny hiccup.... (Score:2)
Okay, now I know that they *say* that they want to do this when a drone is posing a threat to public safety or to rescue operations, and that much is all very well and good. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt on this for just a minute here, and assume that was really all they were ever going to do and it wouldn't be abused.... Ignore for just a moment how unlikely you might think that is and just
This started long before Trump (Score:2)
MSM wants to blame Trump for a cloudy day.
They have been wanting to register drones for a few years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Disabling drones (Score:2)
That cure is worse than the disease! Flak falls down to the ground — on our heads. Better to shoot it with a regular bullet — at least, you only need one or two. But most of these drones are slow-flying "copters" — you can disable them with an entangling net...
And you don't need your means to be too powerful — to endanger a fire-fighter, for example, the drone has to fly right next to him anyway. If it is too far to be hit with a throw
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you rather be rained on by birdshot or bullets?
That isn't a trick question. Competent hunters, shooting into the air don't fire bullets or buckshot.
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/Hr-xBtVU4lg
And if they get very close to ground level there is the ultimate drone killing machine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDBigSjLrFg
Yes, the first is only marginally practical since having falconers and birds of prey on staff is not going to scale, so a speargun/netgun approach as suggested makes more sense.
Are drones a problem for aircraft? (Score:2)
This part I never understood, to be perfectly honest. Every time there is a news-report about pilots avoiding a "near miss" with a drone, I wonder — why do they bother "avoiding" it? None of the consumer-drone I've seen is tougher than a sizeable bird and an airplane better be tough to enough fly straight through a bird or two — except, perhaps, condors... But the heavy (loaded with water) fire-fighting craft (as well as the usual passenger planes use
Re: (Score:2)
This part I never understood, to be perfectly honest. Every time there is a news-report about pilots avoiding a "near miss" with a drone, I wonder — why do they bother "avoiding" it?
Because it's always vastly preferable not to hit anything when you're flying a plane. It's not like they have a lot of time to estimate the weight and size of it, then to calculate the percentage probability that it'll mess up their engines, etc. And even if you can be 99% sure it's not going to mess up your plane, and it doesn't, the plane's still going to get grounded at the end of the flight for checks.
Anyway, in the majority of cases, there probably is no avoidance, because there's no time to act. Then
Re: (Score:2)
+1 insightful
This whole thing is blown WAY out of proportion about firefighting or law enforcement safety. A drone doesn't supply any more danger in such a situation that in ANY OTHER situation where it is flying near or over people. Period. This is just a power grab.
Re: (Score:2)
A drone doesn't supply any more danger in such a situation that in ANY OTHER situation where it is flying near or over people. Period.
Maybe you haven't seen the videos on YouTube of people weaponizing drones. Like this guy who mounts a machine gun on quadcopter. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Near misses default to 'drone' these days. Often the reports are revised a day or so later, and with no coverage, to be a near miss with a blowing plastic bag...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm always suspicious of those news reports. I saw one accompanied by video of a firefighting aircraft taken from the exact trajectory the drone was reported to have followed in relation to the aircraft. The video wasn't a reconstruction or recreation, although I suppose it could've been stock footage, but the path of the observer in relation to the reported trajectory was very suspicious.
My suspicion is that the drones that the firefighters are complaining about are operated by the news organizations cover
Re: (Score:2)
Bird strike has resulted in a few crashes. Drones have harder bits in them than birds and are going to cause more damage.
Makes sense... if it weren't secret. (Score:5, Informative)
I like to know that the government is doing, and if they're saying that they're protecting public safety, they shouldn't mind telling us what they did and why.
Re:Makes sense... if it weren't secret. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Makes sense... if it weren't secret. (Score:5, Insightful)
The first rule of Democracy is that you never trust the government when they say "Trust us".
I don't trust the government to use a power to seize and destroy private property without full disclosure of how, why and when it's occurring. I'm not going to sell my rights down the river because some jackass halfway around the world strapped a bomb to a UAV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Terrorists have already used drones as IEDs in the middle east war arena to attack troops and bases.
True, but there are BIG differences between a drone IED, a drone menacing a firefighting operation, and a drone shot down because the cops think it might have been photographing them murdering some minority homeless guy. The courts, not law enforcement, should determine what is exempt from public disclosure on a case-by-case basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists have used cars and truck to carry bombs, or just run over people. Cars and trucks have been used by terrorists many times in their attacks. If it is logical for drones to have a kill switch, why shouldn't cars and trucks?
Drones are used by a minority, made up of hobbyists and professionals, which makes it an easier group to target, even though any sane person could see that drones account for a minuscule proportion of terrorist attacks. Pressure cookers have been used in attacks more often tha
Re:Makes sense... if it weren't secret. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We are in a brave new world where things happen like a reporter being pinned to the wall by two security guards at an FCC press conference of all things so that appears to be seen as far too much to ask for.
And no, I'm not blaming Trump. It's these agencies taking advantage when government is rudderless that are to blame.
Re:EVVVIIIILLLL Trump! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that every other headline is TRUMP DOES BAD THING instead of tech news headlines?
This is about drones, the law, and the leader who's administration brought forth that law. The exact same headline would have happened if Obama had pushed this.
None of the editors ever pointed a finger at Obama ripping the country apart
I remember in 2008 my relatives promised me civil war, utter stock market annihilation, the literal death of the country if the black guy won. Then when it didn't happen, and everyone predicted the same thing again [thinkprogress.org] in 2012! And yet the opposite happened both times, the country boringly kept steadily improving [factcheck.org] the entire time he was in office. Is there ever going to be an apology? Nope, just more gasping hyperbole without demonstrable evidence or citations I guess. You want to compare them? Before Obama, people always said the market was above all the most important stat, let's start with that one [cnbc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that every other headline is TRUMP DOES BAD THING instead of tech news headlines?
Simple: Trump is fucking up so many things that ALL news is now about Trump, not just tech news.
Re: (Score:2)
It's much easier to think you have a point when you simply deny reality:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
https://it.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Etc, etc, etc.
Do you feel like a sensitive little stupidhead? Because you should.
Re: (Score:2)
The part you find objectionable is likely not going to make it. It's there so that they can sacrifice something in the bill to show that they're working together in order to get it passed with all of the other things that they do want.
This is a common tactic used with legislation: include bits that you don't care about but can be sacrificed to keep the contraversial bits that you do want.
Yes, exactly.
They'll just need to swap out one term that mistakenly appears multiple times in the bill for the correct term.
Substitute "person" or "people" for the terms "drone" or "drones", respectively.
The new cranial kill-switch implant will be administered the next time you see your doctor or are treated at a hospital, if you do not yet have an active kill-switch implant. Note: An implant is mandatory to be able to drive, work, purchase or sell anything, open a bank account, connect to the internet or c
Re: (Score:2)
Just having tough laws on hazardous toys may prevent a lot of abuse.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, works for alcohol, tobacco and firearms, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Alcohol, tobacco and firearms are not toys. They have a powerful force to them. Drones don't.
Re: (Score:3)
On the one hand, I can understand tracking, hacking or destroying your drone for public safety. Like firefighters. Ambulances. Rescue operations, etc.
On the other hand, it seems that it would be be STRONGLY in the interests of public safety to NOT let law enforcement interfere with the operation of drones. If they don't like the public distrust, they brought it on themselves. All of them. They either were the "bad apples", or the ones who would protect the bad apples
Re: (Score:2)
There is great potential for abuse with these things, and the Trump admin is not afraid to make the hard decisions on these types of things, optics be damned.
Your damned right. The ability to take actions and against citizens and their property, and to then be able to hide those actions from public scrutinty is a hugely dangerous thing. My gawd, the potential for abuse is...
Oh... wait.
You actually think that such assaults on our Constitutional rights are a good idea? You are an imbecile.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the fact that they want to hide all records from the public?
That's not suspicious in the least! /sarcasm
Re: (Score:3)
You mean, like Hillary's email? Like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Being the winners, they aren't as obsessed as the losers are.
Do you count the minutes for the Drumpf shitposters?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the trick. Start with a statement that everyone should agree with. "We want to be able to take down drones which endanger the life of others !!" Sure, and I think that was already the case.
Then hide small text where the real difference lies : "so we'll grant us the right to track (Why ?), hack (WTF??), and destroy drones and this without disclosure and with no risk of being sued".
Re: (Score:3)
Some of Trump's broad based 'philosophies' are fine - limited government, closing loopholes on immigration, balancing the budget, personal freedoms, etc.
Virtually all of the Trump Administrations attempts at actually creating functional legislation, OTOH have been pitiful disasters. And then there is the little issue of 360 degree changes in viewpoint depending on who last rubbed his ego. So yeah, some sort of coherent legislation concerning rogue UAVs is fine. I rather suspect, however, that the actual
Re: (Score:3)
'360 degree changes in viewpoint'...you are a moron...just for the record.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep, 'turning that ship, 360 degrees'.
When you see it, you will kick yourself as the moron that you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your drone, you can build drones without all that fancy crap, we even flew across the ocean once without.