Man Accused of Selling US Military Drones On EBay

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Accused of Selling US Military Drones On EBay

Posted by samzenpus on Tuesday March 29, 2011 @04:25AM from the was-that-wrong? dept.

garymortimer writes "47-year-old Henson Chua is in a bit of trouble for trying to sell a RQ-11B 'Raven' Unmanned Aerial Vehicle on eBay. From the article: 'A federal grand jury in Tampa returned an indictment charging Henson Chua, 47, of Manilla, Philippines, with violations of the Arms Export Control Act and smuggling, following an investigation by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations. If convicted on all counts, Chua faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison.'" I'm kicking myself for missing this auction.

182 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 04:27 · Score: 0

He just had some US military drones laying around, huh. We all need to clean out the old garage from time to time.
1. Re:Hmm.. by michelcolman · 2011-03-29 04:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  By the way, anyone interested in buying a B2 bomber? Really cheap, got a few from an old friend of mine, I can't fly them all at once anyway so I might as well make someone else happy with them. Just drop me a line.
2. Re:Hmm.. by Brett+Buck · 2011-03-29 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  I need a stealth bomber - for duck hunting.
3. Re:Hmm.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-03-29 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Does having to file a flight plan with the FAA before use count as an infringement on your right to bear arms?
4. Re:Hmm.. by ganjadude · 2011-03-29 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  that will teach that dog
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
5. Re:Hmm.. by cobrausn · 2011-03-29 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  No, but preventing me from bombing that bear to take his arms would.
  
  --
  How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
6. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  There is a bear in the woods.
  For some people, the bear is easy to see.
  Others don't see it at all.
  Some people say the bear is tame.
  Others say it's vicious and dangerous.
  Since no one can really be sure who's right,
  Isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear?
  If there is a bear...
7. Re:Hmm.. by Viperpete · 2011-03-29 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  I need a stealth bomber - for DUCK HUNTing.
  How else are you going to get that damn snickering dog?
  
  --
  loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
8. Re:Hmm.. by camperdave · 2011-03-29 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Does having to file a flight plan with the FAA before use count as an infringement on your right to bear arms?
  You're free to carry your stealth bomber anywhere you like without filing a flight plan. Otherwise, it's the arms bearing you - which is not covered under the constitution.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
9. Re:Hmm.. by lennier1 · 2011-03-29 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  I need a stealth bomber - for duck hunting.
  ^^ The things people would do to kill that fucking dog!
10. Re:Hmm.. by ddd0004 · 2011-03-29 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  He just had a big net.
11. Re:Hmm.. by camperslo · 2011-03-29 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  But if you keep a garage full and wait years, you'll have the fun of rediscovering forgotten things.
  It would be handy to have one to know where the cat wanders off to. And it would be nice to see if it is a busy day at Farmers' Market, or if any odd smoke is coming from the local power plant. It would be more than a little distracting to control one while driving a car, but with a co-pilot it might be good for picking an optimal route. Acting as a repeater, it might help with picking up that not so strong tv signal, or extending your WiFi so you can stream video from home without paying AT&T. ...probably not so good for finding that last empty seat at the theater. Good for finding lost people in a disaster? (Whatever happened to the RFID tags on Japanese school children? Use an RFID sniffing drone?)
  A little helicopter might be better for things like picking up sandwiches at the local deli. Teach it to fly upside down and trim weeds.
  It's interesting that they went after the guy over export. Would it really be okay to sell one to a neighbor?
  Given the high price, maybe selling it to many people like a time-share would work better. But it better be programmed to land somewhere safe before running out of fuel or someone will probably crash it. They might anyway.
  Someone could go into business charging people to use these while playing paint-ball games along a U.S. border... How to balance the budget: Charge people to let them enforce the border!
  Seems like I read somewhere the U.S. had done some close-up video from a drone in Fukushima, but the Japanese had chosen not to release it. I guess every television network (or blogger?) needs their own drones?
12. Re:Hmm.. by Cederic · 2011-03-29 11:12 · Score: 2
  
  Wouldn't the point of a stealth bomber be that the FAA couldn't actually tell where you were flying?
13. Re:Hmm.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-03-29 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Takeoff and landing might be a bit tricky...
14. Re:Hmm.. by fractoid · 2011-03-29 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  This question becomes especially pertinent when our neighbours have the right to own and arm bears.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
15. Re:Hmm.. by mysidia · 2011-03-29 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  Does having to file a flight plan with the FAA before use count as an infringement on your right to bear arms?
  You gotta be a pilot, but you could fly your B2 in VMC conditions under visual flight rules, no IFR, and then you don't have to file a flight plan, or even deal with ATC (outside of busy tower-controlled airspace). Of course that is risky... in terms of your own safety, should you have a mishap and splash down, you might not get rescued, since ATC doesn't know you're overdue and missing.
  Something tells me the FAA won't be messing with you too much in flight while you're wandering around in a fully armed B2. However.. the USAF may have a thing or two to "talk" to you about....
  Anyways, the flight plan requirement has nothing to do with bearing arms in this case -- that's just about being airborne in complex machine that requires careful planning and extreme care to operate safely.
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 04:32 · Score: 0

How about possession of stolen property?
1. Re:What? by pyrosine · 2011-03-29 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  That would mean admitting they can be stolen
I had one of these when I was a kid! by entertainment · 2011-03-29 04:34 · Score: 0

Isn't this pretty much a remote control airplane?
1. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by flaming+error · 2011-03-29 04:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes. With a camera.
  And a 6 mile range. And a ceiling of 15,000 feet. And speed up to 60 mph.
  And autonomous GPS navigation.
  Probably you didn't have a plane like that when you were a kid.
2. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Locke2005 · 2011-03-29 04:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's a remote control plane with a secure two-way communications channel. It's that communications channel that they don't want falling into the wrong hands.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
3. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-03-29 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  "A single Raven costs about $35,000 and the total system costs $250,000. The RQ-11B Raven UAV weighs about 1.9 kg (4.2 lb), has a flight endurance of 60–90 minutes and an effective operational radius of approximately 10 km (6.2 miles)."
  
  Either military contractors are doing what they do best, or this particular model airplane has some kind of fancy tech tricks up its sleeve...
4. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by fotbr · 2011-03-29 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  Camera? Yeah, cameras in RC planes have been done since at least the 80s, complete with video transmission back (often, but not always, in the amateur UHF bands)
  6 mile range? Yes, if left alone in stable flight most gas RC planes can cover 6 miles before running out of gas. Controlling it would be rather difficult since you couldn't see it unless you were doing something like driving along following it.
  Ceiling of 15k ft? Probably possible, but not likely from a control standpoint - again, you can't see it.
  Speed up to 60 mph? Easily surpassed, and has been for several decades.
  Autonomous navigation is the only "new" feature these things have over RC planes people have been playing with since the 80s (and probably before, but my experience with RC planes only goes back to the mid 80s). None of the rest of your list is anything new, or unique.
5. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  The specs don't look too special. The price must be for the hard case or something. With FPV systems, the range of model airplanes isn't limited to the ca. 2000ft anymore where the pilot can still see the plane from the ground. From there it's just a matter of packing enough lipos. Search Youtube for "fpv flight".
6. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Dude. Stop trying to compare your hobby store crap to a UAV. You sound like a fucking idiot.
7. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by GameMaster · 2011-03-29 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes but, also (most likely), the camera and sensor package. RC planes have carried cameras before, but not of the quality level of what's installed on moder UAVs. Also, they probably have other nice toys like high-end night vision and an advanced software package to tie it all together.
  
  --
  
  Rules of Conduct:
  #1 - The DM is always right.
  #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
8. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by GameMaster · 2011-03-29 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Just a guess but:
  - all carbon fiber
  - ruggedized, mil-spec, gold contact connectors
  - ultra-high end camera system with custom x-y actuator and super zoom
  - latest generation night vision technology
  - super advanced radio tech with top-secret communications protocol/encryption
  - advanced, custom, guidance software
  - advanced, custom, camera software such as computer vision for identifying targets, etc.
  
  --
  
  Rules of Conduct:
  #1 - The DM is always right.
  #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
9. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Skidborg · 2011-03-29 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  I might point out that there are hobbyists who have spent more on their R/C aircraft than the military spent on this UAV. It's not too unreasonable to compare them.
  
  --
  Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
10. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by rolfwind · 2011-03-29 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well, with fpv/rpv, it's possible now to go past the 6 mile range and perhap the ceiling (?).
  First person view has made leaps and bounds the last 20 years in RC planes.
11. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Hatta · 2011-03-29 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Why would losing the drone compromise the secure communications channel? The drone should have a unique private key, as should HQ.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
12. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Hylandr · 2011-03-29 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed.
  And if more people asked for this, then naturally the cost of a UAV wold go down, and the goals for a new UAV that could fly above them would be established.
  I for one, want the ability to tail any of my daughters on their dates. *Grin*
  - Dan.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
13. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by JWSmythe · 2011-03-29 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  I'd be pretty sure the gov't would have provisions in place in case a transceiver did fall into the wrong hands. Military aircraft, vehicles, and troops, can all be subject to capture by an enemy. At that point, there is a good chance that any specialized equipment would be captured (along with their weapons, MREs, and fuel in the vehicle).
  It's probably not a question of who may see it, but how much it cost. The gov't (and therefore we) pay a small fortune for every one of these innovative new devices deployed. It's definitely worth while for the gov't to want to go collect a stolen unit, rather than just ordering a new one. According to the USAF, that item cost approximately $173,000.
  I do wonder if it was a legitimate item, or a home made knockoff that looked close enough, and the title was of the item, that the gov't believed it was a legitimate item. That still counts as far as their case goes. If you have what you say is an illegal item, and you try to sell it as that illegal item, then it's an illegal item.
  If I went on Craigslist, and offered up 10 kilos of heroin, and had photos of what looked like 10 kilos of heroin, I'd be going to jail for selling 10 kilos of heroin, and anything that may have been involved in my procurement of said item.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
14. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't understand what should be special in communications for a device like this. We have huge, light weight hard drives these days. You just have to fill a 100 gigabytes of hard drive space with random data and copy that data onto another hard drive. Xor your transmissions against the random data on one end and xor it again against the matching random data at the other end. Voila, one time pad. 100 gigabytes worth of theoretically perfect, unbreakable encryption. It's not secret in any way, everyone in cryptography knows the "secret".
  Just in case, you'd want to combine it with another form of encryption. Once you ran through the 100 gigabytes, you'd want to refresh your 100 gigabytes of random data. But the drone has to return to some sort of base eventually, and you refresh it then.
15. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by lysdexia · 2011-03-29 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  You left out "Eagle-Eez" and "SteadiHand" and "DynaZoom".
16. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by WaffleMonster · 2011-03-29 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. With a camera.
  And a 6 mile range. And a ceiling of 15,000 feet. And speed up to 60 mph.
  And autonomous GPS navigation.
  Probably you didn't have a plane like that when you were a kid
  In other words a model plane with a cell phone and some control logic. Sorry this all would be very impressive if it were like 20 years ago.
17. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by kevinNCSU · 2011-03-29 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  mile range? Yes, if left alone in stable flight most gas RC planes can cover 6 miles before running out of gas. Controlling it would be rather difficult since you couldn't see it unless you were doing something like driving along following it.
  It's actually an operational radius of 6 miles, so you're almost halfway there. While the RC is running out of gas and falling into enemy hands with it's software and sensor packages the UAV is turning around, flying all the way back to base and landing safely with minimal reserves ;)
18. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by SnarfQuest · 2011-03-29 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Nuclear bomb with a cowboy to ride it down while swinging his hat around, standard equipment on RC's since WWII.
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
19. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by peragrin · 2011-03-29 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually you can get a fairly cheap UAV, by retrofitting an existing plane, with a camera and transmitter.
  The hard part is long range control, as while the transmitters are good for a mile or so being able to control a target at that distance with mark one eyeballs is a tad difficult.
  that is why you need two camera's, one in the belly, and one in the "cockpit"
  In 1994 i know of one guy who modified an arcade game case(the kind were you sat inside of it) to be the on the ground cockpit for his RC plane. it was cool back then.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
20. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Lumpy · 2011-03-29 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not really that new.... Home made UAV is easy and have been built by amateurs for years now....
  http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9980 this works FANTASTIC as a UAV brains. spookly good.
  Plus you can get a drone model that looks 100% identical to the Military version. Give a guy a couple grand and he can easily build a real UAV with PTZ camera, control with GPS waypoints and why build custom RF for comms... use a frigging cellphone, I could talk to the UAV via cellular communication channels across the country.
  http://diydrones.com/ is a good start for info as well...
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
21. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Viperpete · 2011-03-29 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Why would losing the drone compromise the secure communications channel? The drone should have a unique private key, as should HQ.
  Makes no difference when the enemy is radio jamming. It would be much easier to build/modify a radio transmitter to jam signals and make the UAV unable to be remotely controlled for an area than it would be to actually intercept and take control of the UAV. I would suggest that the primary concern is that the UAVs transceiver can be reverse engineered for the frequency range/channelization and then create a device that would allow for easy end-user jamming.
  When I worked on radio systems in the Navy we had some radio modules that would also allow for frequency hopping to avoid potential frequency jamming, combined with usage of encryption and daily keys made for a pretty effective system.
  
  --
  loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
22. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by element-o.p. · 2011-03-29 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  The speed of 60mph isn't that spectacular. IIRC, (it's been a long time since I read the book I'm getting this from) there are R/C slope soarers (gliders that are designed to fly in ridge lift rather than thermals) that can hit 200-250 mph.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
23. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by h4rr4r · 2011-03-29 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  You can get RC planes with nicer cameras than what the military uses. They want durability not absolute best picture possible.
24. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Hylandr · 2011-03-29 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Acquire a gumstix and mate this with cell-based internet connectivity, stream control on one account, video on another. Maybe add another channel for weapons deployent.
  All problems solved. This isn't the rocket science you think it is.
  - Dan.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
25. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Opportunist · 2011-03-29 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Should. Yes.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
26. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Amouth · 2011-03-29 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  you do realize that other than the amount of money they have managed to spend on UAV's in 10 years there is nothing really amazing about them?
  sure your average RC plane can't carry a hellfire missle .. but it didn't need to .. and most of the UAV's can't.. only select ones.
  given the opportunity the RC crowd could, in my mind, have done just as well if not better than what we have now for a lot less.
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
27. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Opportunist · 2011-03-29 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably not a question of who may see it, but how much it cost. The gov't (and therefore we) pay a small fortune for every one of these innovative new devices deployed. It's definitely worth while for the gov't to want to go collect a stolen unit, rather than just ordering a new one. According to the USAF, that item cost approximately $173,000.
  I'm interested. How much is parts, how much is labor and how much is kickback?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
28. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by linux_geek_germany · 2011-03-29 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  If I went on Craigslist, and offered up 10 kilos of heroin, and had photos of what looked like 10 kilos of heroin, I'd be going to jail for selling 10 kilos of heroin, and anything that may have been involved in my procurement of said item.
  
  Is this really the case in the US of A? Sounds pretty wrong to me, although that naturally does not mean that it isn't true.
29. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by mysidia · 2011-03-29 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  What's puzzling is he's charged against importing arms...
  But this type of unmanned vehicle doesn't seem to contain any weaponry or armament whatsoever......
30. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by SnarfQuest · 2011-03-29 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Acquire a gumstix and mate this with cell-based internet connectivity, stream control on one account, video on another. Maybe add another channel for weapons deployent.
  All problems solved. This isn't the rocket science you think it is.
  - Dan.
  Then discover that the network coverage is missing over that one area you just flew through. So much for those $$$'s that just crashed into that CIA listening post.
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
31. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Skidborg · 2011-03-29 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Add backup GPS navigation that will send the plane back to the last place it had a connection.
  
  --
  Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
32. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Hatta · 2011-03-29 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  I would suggest that the primary concern is that the UAVs transceiver can be reverse engineered for the frequency range/channelization and then create a device that would allow for easy end-user jamming.
  Can't they tell what channel the UAV is listening on by listening for what channel HQ is broadcasting on? Kind of hard to keep that a secret.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
33. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by GameboyRMH · 2011-03-29 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Ceiling of 15k ft? Probably possible, but not likely from a control standpoint - again, you can't see it.
  It's been done in combination with remote video. That said, it's not exactly legal, and for good reasons. The guys doing this have spotters on the ground checking for planes in the area with binoculars, but it's still not safe to have what is essentially a 10lb. piece of debris floating around where manned aircraft could pass.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
34. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by bughunter · 2011-03-29 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  I used to work for the manufacturer of the RQ-11 Raven. It’s not just a remote controlled toy. It’s a real airplane with a sophisticated autopilot, a long-range radio link, and a video ground control system. I’m limited by a nondisclosure agreement to what I can say, but I can go over each point in some more detail:
  1) It’s a real airplane: UAVs are controlled by the same FAA regulations as airplanes. They require a Certificate of Airworthiness (COA) in order to operate in US airspace, and cannot be operated within 30 miles of a commercial airport. The pilots also require training and licenses. You can’t just pick one up and operate it like it’s an RC plane, though if you were patient and careful, you could probably figure it out without destroying the air vehicle first.
  2) Sophisticated Autopilot: RC planes require the operator to actively control the aircraft’s every movement, and to do so, one must remain in visual contact with the craft. UAVs have IMUs and autopilots and are typically controlled at a higher level: give it waypoints, set the target airspeed and altitude, and it finds its own way, reacting automatically to atmospheric conditions. When it reaches its waypoint, it will automatically ‘loiter’ by circling the waypoint until given another waypoint, or a command to proceed to the next waypoint. In typical use, the Raven quickly leaves the line of sight of the operator. (Really, it’s almost as easy as controlling a Protoss Observer.)
  3) Long Range Radio Link: The link to the operator is via two way radio, operating on military frequency bands and at powers that require a special FCC license for operation in the US. This unit was very likely an older block A or block B Raven with an analog radio link. If someone got their hands on an operational unit, reverse engineering the protocol would just be a matter of time. The newest Ravens have encrypted, digital links, and would be harder to hack. But this is likely one of the older, analog ones.
  4) Video Ground Control Systems: Enemy possession of these, even one of the older analog units, is probably the most threatening aspect to the US military, as it would allow enemies to decode the protocols between air and ground, and enable an attacker to take control of a plane and/or modify its flight operation, and, depending on how it was configured, may reveal details about other military systems. These are not Futaba hand controllers. These are sophisticated proprietary handheld computers with onboard video processing, and possibly loaded with mission planning and navigation software, terrain models, etc. Definitely not toys.
  There’s an unanswered question, and that’s “where did this guy get a Raven system?” Tens of thousands of these have been sold, mostly to the US Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, but also many to foreign governments. Someone failed to honor their agreement with the manufacturer and the US State Department by allowing this to fall into uncontrolled hands. The operators of these systems are obliged to keep them secure, so at the very least, they’re guilty of negligence. If it was US military personnel, then some serious arms trafficking charges are liable to come down on someone’s head, not just this fence's.
  There's also the question of industrial espionage, as the Raven OEM is in active competition for the small UAV market with other companies in countries around the world, including Israel, China, Italy, and others.
  
  --
  I can see the fnords!
35. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by GameboyRMH · 2011-03-29 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  I for one, want the ability to tail any of my daughters on their dates. *Grin*
  http://ardrone.parrot.com/
  Knock yourself out*
  *I do not condone the creepyness of actually doing this
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
36. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by PopeRatzo · 2011-03-29 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Dude. Stop trying to compare your hobby store crap to a UAV. You sound like a fucking idiot.
  There are companies selling airframes with cameras that are every bit as good as these. You've got to hunt around a bit, but they are out there, selling their products to farmers, geologists, forest rangers and local law enforcement. There's still a little wiggle-room in regard to the legality of how they can be used. There's a state forest not far from Rolla, MO where if you're lucky and you happen to be hiking at the right place you'll run into a couple of brothers (at least they look like brothers) who build these things and have sold or leased them to film crews as well as farmers. They've gotten serious inquiries from paparazzi working for tabloids here and overseas. They are nothing like consumer RC planes, but they were making these things when they were just RC hobbyists before going pro. They're quite impressive and are designed for "out of sight" and autonomous control.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
37. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Viperpete · 2011-03-29 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  1. It would depend on whether they can discriminate between that and any other frequencies being used.
  2. They would need to know what method of modulation being used, AM, FM, Single sideband, dual sideband, etc.
  3. When audibly scanning frequencies, most encrypted traffic is indistinguishable from static.
  Let's say you had a spectrum analyzer and hooked it to an antenna and you had an antenna that you could electronically adjust the length (antenna length is a factor in broadcast and receiving frequencies) and you specifically focused on the frequency ranges used by the military, under ideal conditions you may be able to determine signal strength indications showing you a range in which you may be able to potentially jam. Functionally, you are looking at having to use a computer program to do it fast enough and is able to discriminate between other background freqs in that area. It would be time consuming with a large number of false positives.
  All of that would be if they were using low frequencies, now if they are using Higher freq. Line of Sight or Satellite bouncing communications you would have to get right in the path of the transmission to even tell it was going on. And even then, those methods work well because you do not have to put as much power into it.
  
  --
  loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
38. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by marcosdumay · 2011-03-29 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  "Makes no difference when the enemy is radio jamming."
  
  Absolutely so. How your spy planes work makes no difference when the enemy is broadcasting its position loudly, so everybody notices.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
39. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Viperpete · 2011-03-29 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Who says you have to man a transmitter?
  
  --
  loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
40. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Locke2005 · 2011-03-29 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Military uses spread spectrum/frequency hopping to make it harder to jam.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
41. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Rob+the+Bold · 2011-03-29 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why would losing the drone compromise the secure communications channel? The drone should have a unique private key, as should HQ.
  And furthermore, I can't imagine they don't expect to lose quite a few of these things. The size alone tells you they're obviously built to be expendable.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
42. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Hylandr · 2011-03-29 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Score!
  - Dan.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
43. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by scdeimos · 2011-03-29 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably not a question of who may see it, but how much it cost. The gov't (and therefore we) pay a small fortune for every one of these innovative new devices deployed. It's definitely worth while for the gov't to want to go collect a stolen unit, rather than just ordering a new one. According to the USAF, that item cost approximately $173,000
  
  That's a single system cost with bulk discounts. An individual aircraft is much cheaper (?) at only $35,000. That's still far too much considering what's in them - your government could make substantial savings if they hung out on diydrones.com and built their own drones.
  
  A single Raven costs about $35,000 and the total system costs $250,000. The RQ-11B Raven UAV weighs about 1.9 kg (4.2 lb), has a flight endurance of 60–90 minutes and an effective operational radius of approximately 10 km (6.2 miles).
44. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by JWSmythe · 2011-03-29 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Most likely the breakdown would be something like:
  $2,000 parts (mostly camera and transceiver)
  $50 labor
  $5,250 government MILSPEC certification
  $10,000 cash donation to Senator X who pushed the approval.
  $90,000 profit
  That's per unit. Sell 100,000 units, and that makes the profit and donation rather healthy.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
45. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Isaac+Remuant · 2011-03-29 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to tail your daughter on a date as well...
  Sorry... It was too easy... *Grin*
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
46. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by fractoid · 2011-03-29 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  Probably you didn't have a plane like that when you were a kid.
  No, but now you're all grown up, you can build one in your living room for less than a grand if you're even moderately technical. I'm currently designing a hexacopter for aerial photography, when it's done it will have significant autonomous capability (GPS position hold and waypoint navigation, vision based object tracking, GPS-radio-beacon based object tracking) and a payload capacity of over 1kg. If I went for a fixed-wing design instead of a 'copter, the extra range and ceiling would be easy to exceed.
  
  Hell, if you added a GPS module to a Parrot AR.drone you basically have a cut down version for $350.
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
47. Re:I had one of these when I was a kid! by Nyder · 2011-03-29 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. With a camera.
  And a 6 mile range. And a ceiling of 15,000 feet. And speed up to 60 mph.
  And autonomous GPS navigation.
  Probably you didn't have a plane like that when you were a kid.
  So your saying that it's a remote control airplane with an smartphone attached to it? With bigger engines so it can go farther?
  Sweet.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
I guess he never saw the movie.... by metalmaster · 2011-03-29 04:37 · Score: 1

Everyone knows that you find your buyers with cryptic messages using odd media
Got it where by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 04:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

How did he acquire it in the first place, second How much did it sell for?
1. Re:Got it where by icebraining · 2011-03-29 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  How much did it sell for?
  $13000, according to Reuters.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
2. Re:Got it where by hesaigo999ca · 2011-03-29 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Is this all for 100% with proof, or is this media making a case out of something that was supposed to resemble the drone, and the auctioneer used that name to get attention to his homebrew drone...???
3. Re:Got it where by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  A bargain! According to the Wikipedia article about the Raven UAV, they cost $35000 each. More details, including a sample image of the view from the UAV.
4. Re:Got it where by Rob+the+Bold · 2011-03-29 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Is this all for 100% with proof, or is this media making a case out of something that was supposed to resemble the drone, and the auctioneer used that name to get attention to his homebrew drone...???
  That thought occurred to me, too.
  If you've ever searched eBay for a particularly popular cellphone -- for example -- you've certainly noticed the wide range of knock-offs you get in the results. Some are obvious or even upfront about being a look-alike. Others less so. It certainly is at least plausible that this guy was selling a knockoff.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
What if it's your own drone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 04:41 · Score: 0

That's funny, I was threatened with a crminial case when I tried to sell a similar product that I designed, built and coded myself... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wJHj3hOcuI
1. Re:What if it's your own drone? by schwit1 · 2011-03-29 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  By who and what charge?
2. Re:What if it's your own drone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  by some guy from school who for some reason got incredibly pissed that the primary author of that project wasn't a US citizen. this was in texas in 2007 (see video date). End result, I graduated and took the whole thing apart, then released it as freeware without the projectile drop calculation part.
3. Re:What if it's your own drone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  Basically I was threatened with deportation, inability to graduate and a number of other nebulous things unless I let the one member of that team who was a US citizen put his name in first on the thesis. The guy did almost nothing other than a powerpoint presentation and a little bit of electronics work during the 9 months it took to put the thing together.
4. Re:What if it's your own drone? by GooberToo · 2011-03-29 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, you likely committed a crime and got upset someone threatened to hold you accountable. Oh no...what a topsy tervy world we live in.
5. Re:What if it's your own drone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  So claiming to be the team leader for a drone project if you out of four people did 60% of the work is a crime? The guy who ended up figuring as team leader even agreed that it was BS, but at that point we wanted to graduate. Again, the project is something we did from scratch from building the airframe to coding the firmware and console. I recommend you reread the previous posts.
6. Re:What if it's your own drone? by lysdexia · 2011-03-29 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Precisely! Smart capable foreigners should *expect* to be blackmailed by machiavellian natives! /sargasm
7. Re:What if it's your own drone? by SaroDarksbane · 2011-03-29 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I think it would be the people assisting him on the project that would be committing the crime.
  
  If the project was export controlled, anytime they talked to him about it they were potentially making an export of controlled technical data to a foreign person. The blackmail should really have gone in the other direction. :)
  
  (I am unaware of any restriction on receiving said export controlled information; only exporting it to others without state department approval. As a US citizen, I've never been in that situation, of course, so there might be something out there I'm not aware of).
8. Re:What if it's your own drone? by SnarfQuest · 2011-03-29 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  The guy did almost nothing other than a powerpoint presentation
  Ahh, a PHB type. Don't they usually get top billing anyway?
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
9. Re:What if it's your own drone? by tophermeyer · 2011-03-29 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  /sargasm
  Well that sounds like fun.
I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 04:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

The US military should sell online drone control sessions on XBox live, they could easily ringfence the middle east and put a few thousand drones in the air. They could call the game "death from above", "warfare for all" or simply "foreign policy".
Seriously, war is not cheap so why not put the worlds gamers to good use and collect the revenue?
1. Re:I have a better idea by joelsherrill · 2011-03-29 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  Ender's Game?
2. Re:I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Heh, that's a kinda interesting idea. The military would never do something directly like that (WAY too much security risk), but I COULD see an enterprising individual setting up a mercenary company whose whole business is drones for hire. Build a team of crack gamers, get them security clearances, and build a software package to allow the client (i.e. the US military) to tie into your C&C system for the drones, for things like strike authorization and confirmation.
3. Re:I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  wasn't this the plot of the movie "Toys?"
4. Re:I have a better idea by _Sprocket_ · 2011-03-29 05:16 · Score: 2
  
  Seriously, war is not cheap so why not put the worlds gamers to good use and collect the revenue?
  Here's a reason; griefers.
5. Re:I have a better idea by Hordeking · 2011-03-29 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ender's Game?
  More like the movie "Toys" In fact, that was the first time I'd ever seen this idea...
  
  --
  Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
6. Re:I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  Griefers wouldn't dare when they'll be tracked down and assraped in prison.
7. Re:I have a better idea by Opportunist · 2011-03-29 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  because there's always that idiot that thinks it's funny to dump the payload on the own troops for kicks. And that could maybe be a tad bit of a PR problem in this case.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  Except, in this context, they'd likely be called "activists".
9. Re:I have a better idea by blair1q · 2011-03-29 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  While that would make the operational effort a bit less expensive, it would make the legal hassles many orders of magnitude more expensive.
10. Re:I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Because the 13 year old singing over their headphones would give away the UAV's position.
11. Re:I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Because its Dangerous enough being in front of your Professional military, when you belong to an allied force let alone some over weight 12 year old brat in his bedroom.
12. Re:I have a better idea by Sulphur · 2011-03-29 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Because the 13 year old singing over their headphones would give away the UAV's position.
  The headphones give away their position when they open their mouth.
13. Re:I have a better idea by eleuthero · 2011-03-29 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know they aren't?
wtf by TheCarp · 2011-03-29 04:43 · Score: 0

So... let me get this straight...
he could go to jail for 20 years.... for selling a fucking remote controlled air plane. Oh wait, its a remote controlled air plane with long range and a nice built in camera? Ooooh what a dastardly man! How horrible of him! Oh my god! How dare he sell....a fucking remote controlled air plane.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
1. Re:wtf by Locke2005 · 2011-03-29 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  Anybody possessing one could reverse engineer the command and control system for the drone and come up with a way of jamming it, rendering all the other drones still in possession of the military useless. So yes, it IS a big fucking deal.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
2. Re:wtf by Archangel+Michael · 2011-03-29 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  I don't need remote control airplane to figure out how to jam it. Just need a powerful radio that jams everything, in Military designated freqs. Targeting freqs are easier said than done. Also, I'll bet that the drones are outfitted with autonomous mode GPS guidance that if they lose contact, the go to a predesignated area for retrieval.
  Getting your hands on one of these would likely be of limited benefit.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
3. Re:wtf by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-29 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  Its only illegal arms import, export and smuggling.
4. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  suppose after i reverse engineered the c&c for the drones, and i see a drop flying around in my neighborhood, i might decide to hijack communications with said drone, and tell it to fly straight down.
5. Re:wtf by H0p313ss · 2011-03-29 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't that be security through obscurity? I'm pretty sure that's verboten in /. groupthink.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
6. Re:wtf by erroneus · 2011-03-29 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's a radio signal. Jamming is not hard or complicated. However, being able to get into the command and control system and doing things like feeding it false information or other such things... yeah, I guess a bit of a big deal.
  But in general, the stuff to make a UAV of even your own design is also "bad." It sort of reminds me of the encryption export laws. (Are they still in effect?) You know the one I am talking about? The one that says "128 bit encryption is for use within the US only and cannot be exported?"
  I think it's great that we have laws which are in place to guard our technical superiority, but there's a problem -- the US has been losing its technical superiority for decades and no one is keeping our schools from training foreign minds and no one seems to be stopping this advanced gear from being manufactured in other countries.
  Off the shelf today, you can get a lot of sophisticated and tiny gear to replicate this technology and if you try to sell it, some men in dark suits will likely appear. Our laws and enforcement are not in touch with what is already freely available on the world market. (Heh... I am remembering the time I put a wireless TV transmitter on a remote control car and drove it around the house while viewing the output on the big screen TV... the dog got really upset with this car and was barking at it... Jack Russell terrier.. looked HUGE on the TV though.)
7. Re:wtf by H0p313ss · 2011-03-29 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  If he had been dealing with a reputable US manufacturer of semi-automatic weapons he would have been fine. But selling fancy RC aircraft of dubious provenance is clearly beyond the pale.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
8. Re:wtf by AJH16 · 2011-03-29 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  If the signals don't have either a LOS type signaling or some type of cryptographic based frequency hoping, I would be very surprised. And even if they didn't, I believe they can still run off way points if command and control is lost. I'm not saying I don't think this guy should be prosecuted, but I would hope that simply capturing a drone wouldn't let someone figure out how to stop them all. That would be REALLY bad design.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
9. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Don't know much about military freqs. do we?
10. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  Each drone uses military encrypted frequencies, depending on the key encryption length and algorithm used thats millions of possible combinations to descramble the comms. So I say to you good luck with hijacking the comms. SAT comms it probably harder to jamm over ground-to-air transmissions.
11. Re:wtf by DNS-and-BIND · 2011-03-29 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  *sigh* Such ignorant people, who live in such tiny worlds. What can be done against such limited intellects?
  Yes, believe it or not, there are actual LAWS pertaining to the import and export of MILITARY GOODS. What, it's a remote control airplane? Harmless! Well, the European Union is way ahead of you. The EU defines "dual use goods" as products and technologies normally used for civilian purposes but which may have military applications. For example, Christian fundamentalists could get ahold of the 1918 flu virus under the guise of peaceful research, and then release the disease, "Twelve Monkeys" style, as revenge for too many gays in society. Dual use regulations keep good people safe from these dangerous extremists.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
12. Re:wtf by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-29 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, small arms really don't have technologies that are controlled.
13. Re:wtf by vlm · 2011-03-29 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Anybody possessing one could reverse engineer the command and control system for the drone and come up with a way of jamming it, rendering all the other drones still in possession of the military useless. So yes, it IS a big fucking deal.
  The problem is foreign enemy governments have been entirely unsuccessful given both multiple samples and human intelligence. So using the word "anybody" is a little inaccurate, when you take "the world" and subtract out everything 3rd world that leaves some friendly nations and china / russia. And there is no guarantee they would succeed, just guarantee that multiple less capable groups have failed.
  Its not really a big deal at all.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
14. Re:wtf by H0p313ss · 2011-03-29 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I've got $50 that says 95% of the components in the Raven were made in China
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
15. Re:wtf by peragrin · 2011-03-29 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  I will take that bet, they were all made in Taiwan. Oh wait..
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
16. Re:wtf by Archangel+Michael · 2011-03-29 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  see this, embedded in my post ...
  
  Targeting freqs are easier said than done
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
17. Re:wtf by blair1q · 2011-03-29 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  So is selling your laptop on eBay to someone with an address in Iran.
  Not that I disagree with ITAR, I just think it's got its ludicrous side.
18. Re:wtf by SaroDarksbane · 2011-03-29 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  To anyone who works with them, export control laws are somewhere between a minefield and quicksand.
  
  So-called "dual use" items are generally stuck being classified under whatever they were originally classified under first.
  
  A crop duster can be used to spray biological weapons, but it was originally created for commercial purposes and so is regulated by the Dept of Commerce. Likewise, a UAV may be nothing more than a fancy remote-controlled aircraft, but it was originally created for military purposes and therefore falls under the ITAR regulations of the Dept of State.
19. Re:wtf by DriedClexler · 2011-03-29 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, that would almost be as big a catastrophe as if the entire UAV program decided to rely on security by obscurity! Oh, wait...
  
  --
  Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
20. Re:wtf by camperdave · 2011-03-29 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Everything could be dual use, though. Hammers can be used for building houses, or building holes in someone's skull. It depends on how you're going to use it.
  
  Thank heavens the bagpipe is considered a munition, though. We wouldn't want too many of those getting loose.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
21. Re:wtf by Locke2005 · 2011-03-29 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  The drone is designed to relay video back to the user in real time. Meaning that if the signal from the drone is jammed, it is fairly useless, even if it does go to way points. (Yes, it could still record some video and play it back upon return. But by then, the bad guys could easily have moved.)
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
22. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  So, it's no big deal if a SR-71 Blackbird gets shot down, right? OR a B2 Stealth Bomber, or a F22 Raptor, or if people even get into the facilities where they work on the next generation of weaponry....
23. Re:wtf by H0p313ss · 2011-03-29 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  No the point is that mission critical assets like that should not rely on security through obscurity. They should remain secure no matter who has the hardware.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
24. Re:wtf by TheCarp · 2011-03-29 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  I care more about people being thrown in jail to endure years of incarceration than some worthless soldiers toy.
  And I don't mean to imply the toy is worthless, I care more about such a person than a platoons entire lives, because they are volunteers who sign up for dangerous operations, this guy is having years of his life ruined by government stupidity.
  Fuck soldiers, I don't even see what the need for them is. They don't do anything that we couldn't do with militias. Or well they DO a lot of things we couldn't do with militias, but thats why I like militias better.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by ScientiaPotentiaEst · 2011-03-29 04:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

... these UAVs are becoming more and more like amateur model aircraft. In this current climate (fear, terror, control), I believe the model aircraft crowd are therefore likely to be increasingly regulated. It has happened already to the high power rocketry crowd (they pushed back - with some limited success).
An anecdote: a few years ago, a group flew a model airplane across the Atlantic (link). I found this quite interesting and told a few friends. One reacted with horror, postulating that terrorists would be able to use such a thing to deliver all sorts of nasty. No counterargument convinced him of the absurdity of his fear.
1. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by Layer+3+Ninja · 2011-03-29 05:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There is at least some support in the Senate for the RC guys with bill S.223. There is a section which will prevent the FAA from regulating model aircraft given the meet a certain criteria: (1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into FAA plans and policies,, including this section, the Administrator shall not promulgate any rules or regulations regarding model aircraft or aircraft being developed as model aircraft if such aircraft is-- (A) flown strictly for recreational, sport, competition, or academic purposes; (B) operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; and (C) limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program currently administered by a community-based organization. (2) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.--For purposes of this subsection, the term ``model aircraft'' means a nonhuman-carrying (unmanned) radio-controlled aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, navigating the airspace and flown within visual line-of-sight of the operator for the exclusive and intended use for sport, recreation, competition, or academic purposes."
  
  --
  Power corrupts. Absolute power...is even more fun.
2. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by Gmerk · 2011-03-29 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  ... and model RC aircraft are very closely mimicking the UAV's. PROJET RQ-11 Raven Brushless Remote Control RC UAV Predator/Drone Airplane ARF Kit
3. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by hawguy · 2011-03-29 05:32 · Score: 2
  
  An anecdote: a few years ago, a group flew a model airplane across the Atlantic (link [bbc.co.uk]). I found this quite interesting and told a few friends. One reacted with horror, postulating that terrorists would be able to use such a thing to deliver all sorts of nasty. No counterargument convinced him of the absurdity of his fear.
  What is the absurdity of the fear that a model airplane that can fly thousands of miles by itself could be used to deliver something hazardous?
  The only thing missing is a hazardous payload that is concentrated enough to be carried on an ultralight, GPS guided model plane, then it just needs to be programmed to drop the cargo on large sporting event, concert, etc. Make it a night drop and there's not much that can be done to stop it since the tiny plane would have a tiny radar cross section and be hard to spot on radar, and though FLIR can pick it up, someone would have to be watching for it.
  The best thing (from the terrorists point of view) is that it doesn't have to kill or injure significant numbers of people - it just needs a noticeable effect, then the fact that the substance was delivered from potentially thousands of miles away is more than enough even to instill fear and panic.
  Though the military weapons vendors would make a fortune, selling miniature FLIR enabled Phalanx guns to every stadium in the country. And then there would be the bootleg flak jacket vendors in the parking lot selling protection from Phalanx fallout.
4. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by ScientiaPotentiaEst · 2011-03-29 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  In form, yes. But I have seen repeatedly model aircraft designers using techniques & technology that only sometime later appeared (publicly, at least) on military UAVs. Also, only relatively recently have military UAVs become so small - falling into the realm of model aircraft. And now that the difference is blurring, at what point will a model airplane be considered an ITAR "munition"?
5. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by Overzeetop · 2011-03-29 05:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually, the absurdity is that these are fairly complex undertakings. These types of hobbies - or at least those that do it successfully - are generally for pretty smart folk, and there are precious few of those in these terrorist organizations (they do exist, but in very, very small numbers). There are far cheaper ways of working terror, and at the end of the day, everybody has a limited budget.
  I happen to have played with both pyrotechnics (I was a PGI member for many years) and I now do high power rocketry. It's fun stuff, and it's far less usable to terrorists than a tank full of gasoline, but up until recently you could fill up a 300 gallon tank on the back of a pickup at any local gas station, but you couldn't store 64 grams of slow burning model rocket propellant in your garage without a BATFE inspected, plate steel, double hasp explosives magazine and a Low Explosives Users Permit. You're allowed to have 25lbs of black powder in your basement, but you still can't purchase a 0.5gram engine igniter without the aforementioned permit.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
6. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by ScientiaPotentiaEst · 2011-03-29 05:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What is the absurdity of the fear that a model airplane that can fly thousands of miles by itself could be used to deliver something hazardous?
  It is akin to worrying about general aviation (all those "uncontrolled" airplanes in the sky - in the hands of terrorists, etc.) while ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room - Ryder trucks. Only more so.
  Further, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, a car bomb is a horrifyingly effective terrorist weapon (cheap, fast, inconspicuous, readily available, large payload). As an example, the use of just one such device ended up with US forces leaving Beirut.
  Thus far, no model airplanes have been used in any terrorist attack (long distance or otherwise). If we are to worry about model airplane terrorist attacks, then we are no longer able to prioritize and are fearful to the point of collapse.
7. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by Opportunist · 2011-03-29 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Translation: We don't want the FAA to jump the gun and issue a regulation that doesn't further our goals but is far enough so we could not tighten it without raising suspicion.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by blair1q · 2011-03-29 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  He had precisely the reaction that most of America did the day the Soviets reported that Sputnik was in the sky.
  The result was 30 years of intense development of ICBMs, space programs, and MIRVs, plus all the radars and launch sites and giant bombers and their bases and the tens of thousands of documents delineating how all this stuff was supposed to be used. Probably a trillion dollars or more in 1950s dollars were justified, because of that one feeling. We're still living with the streamlining of the MIC that occurred to duct that feeling into Congress and the election process.
9. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by SnarfQuest · 2011-03-29 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  at what point will a model airplane be considered an ITAR "munition"?
  When it holds a redneck in a cowboy suit waiting to ride a nuke down?
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
10. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by blair1q · 2011-03-29 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  What is the absurdity of the fear that a model airplane that can fly thousands of miles by itself could be used to deliver something hazardous?
  What's the LD50 for ricin?
  The absurdity isn't for one vehicle randomly delivered or its ability to cause someone to die. The absurdity is that John Q. Public is so ego-bloated yet frightened by American marketing ploys that he thinks he could ever be the target of such a thing.
11. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by blair1q · 2011-03-29 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's the beauty of democracy. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be included in something that was voted on.
12. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by SnarfQuest · 2011-03-29 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Thus far, no model airplanes have been used in any terrorist attack (long distance or otherwise). If we are to worry about model airplane terrorist attacks, then we are no longer able to prioritize and are fearful to the point of collapse.
  Maybe we should require a crotch grope before each launch of an RC airplane. It's supposed to stop terrorists in airplanes, so shouldn't it work for RC pilots too?
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
13. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  So, I guess, we have a consensus here. Petrochemicals are extremely dangerous. Oz for oz, gasoline packs more energy than c4. The reason it isn't considered a weapon is because it releases it's energy much slower. However, if the petrol is allowed the time to burn, it's affects are more devastating, than high order explosives.
  Yet the Obama administration is doing nothing to combat the millions of people running around today in 3000 lb guided weapons powered by petrol chemicals exploding THOUSANDS of times every minute.
  Even when these dangerous automobiles are not being driven by terrorists, they still cause accidents and kill INNOCENT CHILDREN, because they are inherently dangerous.
  We need to engage in a war on petrol chemicals. Our streets and highways will never be safe until all the devil juice that powered the 911 attack, and thousands of car bombs is finally eliminated from the world. In is the only logical conclusion I can come to based on the current trends of the ATF, and the USian industrial/law enforcement / media complex.
  An alternative action plan would be to realize that most people are basically good, and aren't going to fly a plane into your house UNLESS you give them a reason to.
  However, I like the first solution better.
14. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by LWATCDR · 2011-03-29 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  "Actually, the absurdity is that these are fairly complex undertakings. These types of hobbies - or at least those that do it successfully - are generally for pretty smart folk, and there are precious few of those in these terrorist organizations (they do exist, but in very, very small numbers). "
  Really? That seems to be a very optimistic or arrogant attitude. I am not for limiting RC and or Model rocket enthusiasts since I doubt that it would actually make anybody safer. Thing is that now that you can buy a cell phone with gyros, accelerometers, GPS, cameras, and broad band connections the cat is really mostly out of the bag. I am just waiting for the a cellphone based guidance system. Even without that you can buy a GPS and a Wiimote plus and nun-chuck and then combine that with something like the Gumstix, beagle board, or even one of the small cheap micros to put together a guidance system for very little money. That cat is really out of the bag now that we have GPS, cheap gyros, accelerometers, and cheap powerful computers.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
15. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by Coren22 · 2011-03-29 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  As long as it is a cute woman doing the grope, it would lead to record numbers taking up RC piloting.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
16. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by LordLimecat · 2011-03-29 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  The absurdity of it is that this is, broadly speaking, a free country, and there is very little preventing someone from taking your life other than the fear of law enforcement.
  See, thats one of the hazards of a free country, and the only way to chip away at such hazards is to increasingly implement a police state. So for every one of these worries you assuage, you give up more freedom.
  THATS the absurdity of it-- are you not concerned that someone can legally own a gun, and could very easily take your life with it? Why then be concerned with the threat of someone flying a slow, delicate RC plane several thousand miles carrying a few pounds of something that might have a chance to mildly impact your life
17. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by DMacedo · 2011-03-29 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  I want to see a "challenge accepted" in reply to this message and a post on hackaday anytime soon!...
18. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by cdrguru · 2011-03-29 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to think about the idea that until fairly recently it wouldn't have occurred to anyone (recent immigrant, visitor or citizen) that they would actually want to kill someone, regardless of the likelyhood of consequences to themselves.
  There are no real consequences to killing someone today. Only about 20% of murders are caught and convicted. The rest go free, either after never being caught or after some kind of botched trial where they get off because the police lost the evidence or some other nonsense. So why aren't people being killed all the time? Well, in fact, they are. The murder rate is is pretty darn high in most large cities and this isn't just "crimes of passion" and armed robberies gone bad.
  There is another problem. We are beginning to have sizable groups of people that are focused completely on an afterlife in some spirtual relm far, far removed from the cares of what we consider to be everyday life. There are both Christians and Muslims so focused and perhaps others. I think the Moonies might count in this group, for example. I don't believe anyone has distorted Judaism in this manner, but I suppose is it possible. So it isn't just Islamic nutjobs - it is potentially any religon. And these people are indeed dangerous. One thing you can count on is a rather sane outlook that someone wants to live to instill in them a healthy fear of doing things that will put an end to their life - but someone focused on the afterlife just doesn't care at all. Anything is open to them, including things that will quite obviously kill them and perhaps others they care about. But because "life" is meaningless to them and only the "afterlife" counts, it doesn't matter.
  So between limited consequences for murder in the US today - 4 out of 5 chances of not getting punished - and folks that simply don't give a rat's ass about life at all, we are in a fairly unique situation. This simply hasn't had to be faced before. I would consider fear to be a reasonable response to this - because the only other response that seems at all reasonable is living it up while you can because life is short and it is only going to get shorter. If you can't control how you are going to die or when, you might as well spend the last few days having as much fun as you can, right?
19. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  So the US didn't believe that it was worth paying $13K for this "model plane", but decided that the "propaganda" value of arresting this bloke was worth the hundreds of thousands to get him.
  Not to mention the millions to jail him for 20 years in the US.
  Sod his rights in his own country where there was no problem or law broken.
20. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by FragHARD · 2011-03-29 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct in thinking that the RC crowd will be taregeted next.... in fact they already have been as the FAA has been quick along with quite a few members of congress and other freedom stealing politicians in trying to take our freedoms away just check here for updates---> http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx
  While we have been pushing back, the ever growing liberal government has been continually making up new laws and rules for us to be governed by aka. imprisoned. It is very sad when we look at what just a few years of uncontrolled government has been able to steal from the citizens of this great country.
  
  --
  FragHARD or don't frag at all
21. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by jimnorcal · 2011-03-29 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  Is it these odd regulations why I don't see model rockets in stores anymore (along with their small rocket engines that looked similar to an m-80 fire cracker with a hole in the middle)? I've wondered off and on over the years why I don't see those things being sold anymore. when I was kid I saw them all the time and always wanted to buy n try them out but didn't have the money as a kid. And now that I'm an adult, they're not around anymore. WTF!?
22. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by drinkypoo · 2011-03-30 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  These types of hobbies - or at least those that do it successfully - are generally for pretty smart folk, and there are precious few of those in these terrorist organizations (they do exist, but in very, very small numbers).
  
  How many does it take?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
23. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by LordLimecat · 2011-03-30 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  For starters, your idea of 20% of murderers caught and convicted seems to be made up; statistics were hard to find, but everything I found shows a much higher conviction rate.
  When you descended into religion bashing, I think your posts quality and relevancy cratered, but lets address your claims...
  Well, the Christian doctrines are pretty strong on the whole "no killing except in self defense" thing (if even that provision is allowed), so I fail to see how someone believing strongly in such a faith is more likely to commit murders.
  As for Islam, getting into their afterlife actually requires you to live a virtuous life, and to hope that your good deeds outweigh your bad ones. Again, murder is specifically forbidden; there are passages that talk of the death penalty, and war / self defense is allowed, but killing someone on the streets would not be. Once again, I fail to see a correlation between murders in this or any country (ignoring the Muslim / Israeli conflict, as that would kind of count as a war...) and belief in such a religion.
  Mormons also believe that living a moral life has an impact on said afterlife, so here again, one doesnt go around murdering willy-nilly if they are truly focused on the afterlife.
  
  But because "life" is meaningless to them and only the "afterlife" counts, it doesn't matter.
  Spoken like someone who has no actual knowledge of what the religions teach, and has given it no thought. Heres a brainteaser-- if religions make people not care about the present life, how come we dont see religious folk committing suicide left and right?
  Ah but, you say, what about suicide bombers? What about cults?
  Well, according to this, there seem to have been under 300 suicide bombings between 2002 and 2008 in Afghanistan. Between 1983 and 2000, there were under 300 suicide bombings combined for the Tamil Tigers (who have the lead with 171, incidentally, not even being muslim-- this is folks dying for an athiestic cause), Hezebollah (25), Hamas (22), Islamic Jihad (8), and several others. This in fact seems to directly contradict your assumptions, as the leader, the Tigers, has more bombings to its name than all the rest combined, and this for a non-religious cause!
24. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by Overzeetop · 2011-03-30 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  They're out there. They used to be in Walmart (in a very, very small area), even. The problem with the box box stores is that the kits take time to build, so they only carry the RTF (ready to fly) models, which are pretty limited. Rocketry also requires a bit of set up equipment (launch controller and pad) which are "expensive". Along with the increase in engine prices - usu $5-8 for a 3 pack of the regular engines you remember, and $12-18 for a 3-pack of the larger D engines, it's an expensive hobby. They've mostly been phased out, but they still exist in the few hobby stores which survive.
  A lot of the push has moved to online, as the small market for them is best aggregated. Hobbylinc has a good selection for reasonable prices, as does discount rocketry. I fly some with my 8yo daughter when we have time.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
25. Re:Perhaps tangential, but a worry nevertheless... by pacinpm · 2011-04-05 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the Christian doctrines are pretty strong on the whole "no killing except in self defense" thing (if even that provision is allowed), so I fail to see how someone believing strongly in such a faith is more likely to commit murders.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades - Christians don't do this anymore because they don't give a shit. Unless you count Irish guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast#The_Troubles
  If you convince someone to take some facts at faith you can't expect logic behaviour from him.
So you can't buy a plane? Buy a ship instead! by jd · 2011-03-29 05:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

One 19,000 tonne aircraft carrier for sale, one careful owner, only used to drive to church on sundays and launch fearsome aircraft into the skies to intimidate the enemy and drink their blood.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
1. Re:So you can't buy a plane? Buy a ship instead! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I love the way the that the Ark Royal disposal web site has the item listed as "Availability: In stock"
2. Re:So you can't buy a plane? Buy a ship instead! by Tigger's+Pet · 2011-03-29 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately they have already decommissioned the aircraft;-
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8158181/HMS-Ark-Royal-Their-final-mission.html
  Maybe that's why the guy bought the Raven - it's all he could afford if he wanted to get Ark Royal as well.
3. Re:So you can't buy a plane? Buy a ship instead! by sconeu · 2011-03-29 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  And an "Add to Wish list" button
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
4. Re:So you can't buy a plane? Buy a ship instead! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  The best part of that aircraft carrier sale is that there is an "Add to Cart" button, as if one were going to casually purchase an aircraft carrier then continue shopping.
5. Re:So you can't buy a plane? Buy a ship instead! by PPH · 2011-03-29 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  People who bought an aircraft carrier also bought ....
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
6. Re:So you can't buy a plane? Buy a ship instead! by jd · 2011-03-29 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Plenty of space to stow things!
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
entrapment? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:02 · Score: 0

Just to be clear, a man outside of US jurisdiction owns something it was legal to own where he was, wants to sell it (possibly violating eBay TOS, but still outside US jurisdiction) and does so. The law he broke was in importing it to the US and attempting to export it again, and from the sound of it, I can easily imagine he only did this because the undercover agents encouraged him (probably in the guise of delivery). I thought law enforcement officers enticing someone to break a law they otherwise showed no sign of wanting to break was entrapment.
1. Re:entrapment? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Just to be clear, since when is being in Los Angeles outside of US jurisdiction?
2. Re:entrapment? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Just to be clear, it is kind of ridiculous to claim entrapment when you are the one who initiated the transaction.
I missed out on it. by Tigger's+Pet · 2011-03-29 05:08 · Score: 1

Maybe I'll just have to buy its baby brother instead;-
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RQ-11-Raven-Aero-Vironment-UAV-Airplane-Wood-Model-Big-/120492557141?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c0dea8355
What a waste of ICE's time! by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-03-29 05:20 · Score: 1

Piddling around with this irrelevant stuff takes ICE away from the far greater threat to the US of A: IP theft!

/snark
1. Re:What a waste of ICE's time! by westlake · 2011-03-29 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Piddling around with this irrelevant stuff takes ICE away from the far greater threat to the US of A: IP theft!>/quote>
  Govetnments multitask. Deal with it.
2. Re:What a waste of ICE's time! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  Haven't you heard any court room melodramas recently. Unless the government / people focus every single aspect of their being onto one paticular task all the friggin time, they are considered to be derelect in their duty. This one paticular task should be 'TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN'. If you for one second aren't thinking about protecting children, you are a lowsy person, and can be sued.
  This is why U.S. speed laws are so low, and you are not allowed to talk on a cell phone while driving. Every last once of your being should be concerned with looking straight ahead, and watching for children who might happen to be in the middle of the road.
  To do anything else would have catastrophic affects on the children.
  In this case ICE curtailed the sail of an RC airplane that could have potentially fallen on the head of a child, so I support the decision to go after this guy rather that worry about the flood of illegals invading the USA, which would have done nothing to help protect Mexican children, but would have postponed the decline of the usa.
  -Illegal immigration worked great for the great Roman empire. It worked great for the great Inca empire. I sense that the USA is going to be great just like these two empires.
  --The first role of any government is to protect the borders. If it can't do that the country is not going to be around for long.
Illegal in what country?! by Shuntros · 2011-03-29 05:37 · Score: 0

If he lives in the Philippines he may not have broken any laws whatsoever. The way America thinks they can apply their laws to anyone on earth, regardless of location or citizenship is simply preposterous.
1. Re:Illegal in what country?! by Shuntros · 2011-03-29 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, having RTFA again I see he was actually in the USA when he was arrested. In that case, good luck fella; you'll need it.
2. Re:Illegal in what country?! by doomy · 2011-03-29 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  This guy gets 20 years, meanwhile the US solider proudly defend our freedom in Iraq (according to his parents), by hunting/killing civilians, cutting their body parts and filming it gets out in 8 years.
  
  --
  ...free your source and the rest would follow...
Pffft by squidflakes · 2011-03-29 05:47 · Score: 1

A Raven? Pfffft, they are doing an EOL no-replace on the MQ-1 Predators, and I'd much rather have one of those.
So let me guess... by Billy+the+Mountain · 2011-03-29 05:50 · Score: 1

they nabbed him as he was getting off the Jetway? Maybe just for grins an agent holding up a sign saying "Prison."

--
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
A+++++++ by Chris+Mattern · 2011-03-29 05:50 · Score: 1

Would definitely buy again.
1. Re:A+++++++ by mysidia · 2011-03-29 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  A- Seller said it was a UAV... opened package, and instead, it contained an office chair.
Package Deal? by hduff · 2011-03-29 05:54 · Score: 1

Did it come as a package deal along with his daughter's virginity?

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Just a legal issue by MrBlic · 2011-03-29 06:23 · Score: 1

The plane itself is nothing dangerous or even impressive.
Build your own if you want... start here: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=14465

--
Celebrate Excellence!
Which Laws? by b4upoo · 2011-03-29 06:24 · Score: 1

Was he trying to simply steal money or did he have any means of actually delivering the device? If he is only a thief Homeland Security really should stay out of the equation.
Does this mean that I should not sell my 40 megaton armed Cruise missiles to the highest bidders?
We could solve numerous problems with armaments. For example we could spin windmills on our side of the pond with the nuclear wind caused by bombing the middle east relentlessly, and then there is always North Korea.
the raven.......wow.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 06:55 · Score: 0

well the raven is HORRIBLE!!!!! how do I know....I operate one...it's garbage anyone who gets their hands on one didn't really gain much. It flys when it chooses to fly. It breaks all the time. It's more hassle than it's worth.
how many people would have by nopainogain · 2011-03-29 06:55 · Score: 0

used this for silly pranks like chasing the boss' car home from work?
ITAR destroys trade by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-29 07:26 · Score: 0

Being an active person in the militaria communities, i see this problem all the time.
US Dealers often won't sell things overseas, because they're afraid of ITAR crackdowns.
Just about anything made in USA is ITAR restricted.
I don't get why. It's the silliest things that are ITAR restricted. Really. Even though they're sold all over europe anyway, we can't buy them in USA.
They must not want our business.
Encryption by will_die · 2011-03-29 08:59 · Score: 1

If you go read the description of these devices there is only one reason he would be in trouble and that is because the planes still had military level encryption.
So yes there is a reason a bunch of better informed people would say he is guilty for selling "a remote plane with a camera"
So you only have to follow laws you agree with? by unassimilatible · 2011-03-29 09:56 · Score: 1

Does that apply to Apple and Microsoft and Google as well?

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
1. Re:So you only have to follow laws you agree with? by TheCarp · 2011-03-29 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  Actually yes, that is exactly my policy and what I encourage of everyone else.
  If the law is stupid, it is a free persons duty to ignore the law and break it wherever he sees fit.
  I actually don't recognize the right of anyone to make or enforce stupid laws on other people. Period.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
That's nonsense, anarchy by unassimilatible · 2011-03-29 10:16 · Score: 2

I think murder laws are stupid. So come over here and let's discuss it like real anarchists.

In a civil society, people can't pick and choose what laws they follow. An essential element of living in a republic means you submit to laws, even when your side loses, not just when it wins.

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
1. Re:That's nonsense, anarchy by TheCarp · 2011-03-29 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  Actually they can, and do every day. Every time you follow a law, its a choice, every time you break one... knowingly,.... its a choice. You can cram your republic up your ass, I never signed the constitution. I never pledged any allegiance to it in my entire adult life. I was born here, and intend to stay, no matter what the thugs in power decide they have the power to do... more power to them, they are not MY leaders.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
2. Re:That's nonsense, anarchy by knarf · 2011-03-30 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think murder laws are stupid. So come over here and let's discuss it like real anarchists.
  I see where you are trying to get with that quote, but it does not mean what you seem to think it does. If you were to discuss murder laws like 'real anarchists' (whatever those might be) you should be fine apart from possibly having your ears talked off about anarchism.
  "Your freedom ends where mine begins" is a common tenet in anarchism. Since my freedom includes the freedom to be alive, murder is just as much a crime in an anarchistic society as it is in a nation-state like the one and I live in.
  In other words, anarchism is not the same as lawlessness. Read up about it and you'll see what I mean. Anarchism centers on the abolishment of the state, not on lawlessness. Of course there are probably as many flavours of anarchism as there are anarchists so it is hard to say what 'anarchism' really means to any single individual...
  
  --
  --frank[at]unternet.org
OK, Internet tough guy by unassimilatible · 2011-03-29 14:35 · Score: 1

Sign that creed on your next tax return in lieu of a check.

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
1. Re:OK, Internet tough guy by TheCarp · 2011-03-31 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  There is a difference between teasing a wild tiger, and acknowledging it for what it is.... a beast that will kill you for a snack.
  Recognizing what it is and advocating avoiding, or even killing it or driving it out of the area where you live is one thing. Its quite another to to just offer it a snack.
  How about you take your philosophy to heart. Clearly you never go above the speed limit, at all, not even 1 mph. Because, you live in a republic and it would be some moral failing to actually transgess one of its holy laws. If you were here in MA and your wife asked you to spank her because it turns her on, would you say "no honey, that would be domestic assault here in MA, and I don't want to break the law".
  If so then, I salute you and your utter lack of hypocrisy.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"