Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stanford's Francis Fukuyama Builds Personal Surveillance Drone

Posted by timothy on from the who-is-this-fukuyama-guy? dept.

HerbieTMac writes "Political science professor Francis Fukuyama builds and flies his own personal surveillance drones. His current model requires ground visibility but he is working on the HAM license that would allow fully remote operation. His YouTube videos (video 1 , video 2) are particularly impressive." I had no idea that Francis Fukuyama had such technical interests.

63 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. You will all be watched ! Question here. by ACK!! · · Score: 1

    personal surveillance drones ? Any worse than the random google trucks taking pics of people taking out the trash au naturale? Or is this like if everyone had the power to do a wiretap on demand? What do you guys think

    --
    ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i
  2. Will it survive any better? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Funny

    We all know what happened to the nuclear reactor this guy built on the eastern seaboard of Japan. Will this thing fare any better against a Tsunami? oh, wait. That was Fukushima right? oops. me bad.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Will it survive any better? by kiehlster · · Score: 1

      It's all part of the cover-up. Political Science has everything to do with why we're all now feeling warm fuzzy feelings about Fukushima. Or is that the radiation? Well... What does it matter? With the addition of remote-control drones monitoring radioactivity, we can all sleep soundly, right?

  3. Ham license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    A ham license might let him operate on different frequencies and with longer range. However the FAA does not allow a radio-control aircraft to operate out of view of the controller under current guidelines.

    1. Re:Ham license by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      A ham license might let him operate on different frequencies and with longer range. However the FAA does not allow a radio-control aircraft to operate out of view of the controller under current guidelines.

      Incorrect.

      Under current guidelines the FAA RECOMMENDS that any SUAS not be operated out of LOS (Line Of Sight) of the operator, but it is only a recommendation, NOT law.

      That said, new law that will be coming into effect very soon WILL restrict flights to Line of Sight, but Line of Sight is not tightly defined. So there will be ways around it.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:Ham license by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Everywhere in the world is within line of sight to very low frequency transmissions.

    3. Re:Ham license by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      That said, new law that will be coming into effect very soon

      Just wanted to hang this off your post, although it's OT, it's definitely "News for Nerds": new laws will require US taxpayers to send in the forms that their investment banks send them. In other words, the US government will no longer accept "your word" that your purchase price was what it was; now, they require the investment houses to provide the government with purchase prices, and your report had damned well better match that, otherwise ... well, you won't be paying more taxes while in prison, so perhaps this law will cause an implosion???

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  4. Well... by G-Man · · Score: 1

    ...what with history being over, he needed something else to do.

    1. Re:Well... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      ...what with history being over, he needed something else to do.

      Ha ha. Really, he should feel silly for writing that book. As if the end of one empire really meant the end of history.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  5. The burning question... by _0x783czar · · Score: 1

    How Long till Iran downs one?

    --
    ~theCzar
    1. Re:The burning question... by batquux · · Score: 1

      See video 2. They already did.

  6. "Ham" is not an initialism or an acronym by Nimey · · Score: 1

    so quit writing it in all caps.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  7. See also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    DIY Drones

  8. Front page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He taped a video camera to a helicopter. Fun, but doesn't merit the front page of Slashdot and barely qualifies as "surveillance drone".

  9. military and law enforcement by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    You need to track someone who is on the move, you use one of these and they will take video and keep tabs on him without needing to place a gps on that person...it is very cool, if someone does not know they are being tracked, however, how small does it have to be in order to be effective at not being discovered, as once discovered, they can just shoot out of the sky or go into a place where they can not follow.

    1. Re:military and law enforcement by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      It's certain to be destruction of government property to purposely sabotage a government drone. So if you're being actively monitored by such a device, you can be pretty sure there's an agent or twelve around the corner from you ready to pounce. You'll get arrested and subjected to search. Also government operated ones will probably be riding pretty high, so picking it off will be difficult. A laser is probably a good idea to blind it, but somehow I suspect it'll fall afoul of the same laws which prohibit lasering manned aircraft.

      More likely these will be used to perform either passive surveillance (broad sweeping inspections - eg, let's make sure everyone who built an extension on their house paid for the permit and is paying taxes on it, and watch for signs of commercial activity on residential property, and so forth), these will be built for endurance so they can scope out a wide area. A different class of drone will be active surveillance - when they're watching your movements to feed telemetry back to a ground agent who is attempting to intercept you. These will be built for speed and maneuverability so they can follow a speeding vehicle (more like the drones in Afghanistan - plane style rather than copter style). This latter class is what will eventually be weaponized once people are accustomed to the eye in the sky.

      --
      Slay a dragon... over lunch!
  10. Cool but not all that impressive by Bretski · · Score: 5, Informative

    Beside the fact that people have been doing this for years, he built this on a multi-rotor heli platform. Flight times for these are usually under 10 minutes, given the power needed to keep them in the air. If he really wants surveillance with long range, he should try a fixed-wing setup, where flight times can be 30-45 minutes. DIYDRONES.COM is a good place to start.

    1. Re:Cool but not all that impressive by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Of course, It's getting better everyday in time and distance.

      On second thought, IMO, Francis is off track, multirotors are cool, but don't fit the use case. That's why the Japan Ministry Of Defense's flying sphere has temporary hover capabilities, but it designed to fly horizontally, which is more efficient for long distance--its design fits the search and inspect use case. Now for search and rescue, a multirotor maybe more appropriate.

    2. Re:Cool but not all that impressive by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I had a radio controlled "Wild Wing" flying wing with Lithium Ion batteries that had a loiter time of well over an hour, how long I don't know as it always outlasted my patience or bladder.

  11. Surveillance Drone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    More like a RC helicopter with a camera taped to it. How is this news worthy again?

  12. Re:Personal Surveillance? by Amouth · · Score: 1

    now that would be an awesome project..

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  13. No worries... by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative
    The summary was written by Timothy, which means it's only peripherally related to reality.

    The license is so he can do more sophisticated telemetry. FTA:

    I've bought the package that includes a real time video transmitter and receiver, camera, and telemetry system that will send back GPS data on the drone's location, heading, airspeed, etc. This requires, among other things, a ham radio license.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:No worries... by fred911 · · Score: 1

      Working on it?

        Gime a break. Any somewhat educated person should be able to pass the exam for all privs above 30mhz with an hours worth of reading. What's he been smoking?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:No worries... by HerbieTMac · · Score: 1

      In fairness to Timothy, I wrote the summary. But without realtime video and telemetry, you can't fly out of sight. So my summary is, in fact, correctly stated (currently requires visual contact, HAM license would allow remote operation)

    3. Re:No worries... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      This requires, among other things, a ham radio license.

      I guess he's working on those other things...

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
    4. Re:No worries... by msauve · · Score: 1

      The summary statement that it would allow "fully remote operation," while true, is misleading. The article makes no mention of any intended use other than telemetry. Also, it's "ham," not "HAM." The word is neither an acronym nor a proper noun.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:No worries... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He's a poly sci professor. Assume dumb as a rock until evidence shows otherwise.

      I posted about flying my scale predator over occupiers/gun shows/tea party/rainbow gathering etc (anybody with paranoid tendencies, which I am deliberately feeding) some months ago and got flamed. Was told I was 'off my meds'.

      Still posting about it, hoping to encourage others to help push the lunatic fringe over the edge.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:No worries... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      FAA requires visual contact at all times.

      They won't be the first to break that rule, nor the last. Perhaps they will be the first prosecuted for doing it so publicly.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:No worries... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Replying to self: Building a 'guided missile' is the same offense as building a machine gun (without appropriate licenses). Ten years federal. No joke.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:No worries... by deapbluesea · · Score: 1

      To back up the AC, his post is completely correct. FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 allows individuals to fly remotely controlled aircraft up to 400 feet in altitude, within visual range at all times. This does not apply to university craft, craft owned by a business, or craft owned "by the public" such as police, military, or any city/county UAVs. You have to be able to demonstrate to the FAA that you are flying solely for entertainment/education and that you are only spending your own money on it, and not making any profit off the venture. In fact, it is against FAA regulations for non-individuals to even fly remote controlled aircraft under this AC (I know this based on a very tense and bitter fight with FAA officials over an R/C club on a military installation using donated money to purchase aircraft).

      There exist a wide range of technologies for sending telemetry from air to ground over the 2.4GHz and 900MHz ISM bands. (a few examples). There is no need or reason for a ham license whatsoever since it's only purpose is to allow you to fly beyond visual line of sight. The claim that it is necessary is flat wrong.

      On to the "anyone can build one" discussion: it's absolutely true. I've built a total of 6 UAVs over the last 5 years. Average cost is $1k if you don't crash it during testing. The typical route is to take an ARF model, add a commercially available autopilot, hook up the servos, put in a bigger engine, battery packs, etc. On-board computers (not counting the autopilot itself) are almost never needed because these vehicles have to be operated line of sight anyway. If you want to do on-board computation, there are a wide variety of options from Gumstix, to pc104 form factor systems. All telemetry is usually handled on the 900 MHz ISM band which I have personally flown as far as 15km (in a UAV-approved range with all of the proper approvals) using a Yagi antenna that was self-steered from the telemetry data. The link still had plenty of signal left on it, but the UAV didn't have the legs to go further and still complete its mission.

      Moral of the story: learn the rules and stick to them. The FAA does not accept "but I heard someone did it on /." as an excuse, and they have a tendency to not only shut down the idiot that didn't follow the rules, but every other person conducting UAV research who is even remotely associated with that club/institution/location.

      --
      Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
  14. Illegal? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    I don't see how you get to that conclusion.
    I mean, I understand the fear that the government will want the technology for itself, but the facts do not support the conclusion.

    The main reason I can say this with confidence is that the government has so far built its legal basis for operating these drones on some rather common and pedestrian legal precedents. So to really restrict the usage of drones, the government would have to restrict the kind of laws that allow hobbyists to fly RCs and journalists to do their jobs... that's pretty much a non-starter.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  15. Maybe he should stick to technology by quax · · Score: 3, Informative

    After all his "End of History" prognosis was spectacularly wrong.

    1. Re:Maybe he should stick to technology by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Ah, but he totally redeemed himself with his lucidity and insight during his PNAC years...

    2. Re:Maybe he should stick to technology by quax · · Score: 1

      You are a very funny fuzzyfuzzyfungus :)

    3. Re:Maybe he should stick to technology by quax · · Score: 1

      The art of prognosis: Say one thing and allow for the other.

      Every third rate investment letter writer knows that trick. That way they can later pull out the part of an old prognosis that makes them look good.

      Color me unimpressed.

  16. Eh... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Well, seeing how brilliantly his forays into the fields of political science and politics have gone, I'd be willing to consider the notion that he ought to consider a change of field...

    At least his little RC toys appear to actually fly, don't cost billions of dollars, and haven't yet crashed into a morass of delusionally bad decision-making.

  17. Who the fuck is he? by OzPeter · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And why should I care?

    And yes I did read the Wikipedia article.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  18. Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I prefer the situation where everybody is watching everybody, with nobody in command, to the situation where a powerful government is watching everybody with only a handful in command.

    We cannot stop technology. Cameras are getting too small, and computers too fast and both get too cheap to realistically think they won't be applied on a massive scale. The big question is who controls the data, and what happens to it.

  19. OTS solutions already available by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you want one of your own, there are many solutions already available off-the-shelf, the cheapest is the Parrot AR.Drone which is computer-controlled via Wifi. If you want something a bit more serious, Mikrokopter makes kits and sells parts, but if you want more range you'll have to swap computer control via WiFi for a traditional FM remote plus UHF camera.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:OTS solutions already available by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I would not be endorsing the Parrot. They still have problems of the thing just taking off on owners, never to be seen again. Sometimes on the first flight. Seriously, how do you not have a failsafe for that?

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:OTS solutions already available by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I lose most RC aircraft that way :-(

      I know an early prototype stuck itself to the roof of a convention hall, but I didn't think they let that problem go unchecked, especially in a vehicle with a full computer on board that should be able to tell that it's climbing into the wild blue yonder without remote input.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:OTS solutions already available by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Check out the Amazon reviews. MULTIPLE owners complaining about this happening and Parrot basically says 'you're fucked, want to buy another?'

      --
      Good-bye
  20. Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    I prefer the situation where everybody is watching the government with missiles locked on those in command. Just in case.

  21. So you put a camera on a RC model by LanceUppercut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So you put a typical camera on a typical RC model - something virtually every single RC pilot has been doing for years already. YouTube is choke-full of such videos. Where's the news? The fact that he call it a "personal surveillance drone"? Or the fact that a Stanford professor is playing with a toy) (He should have bought a real non-toy RC model) P.S. And no, HAM radio licence is not sufficient for BVR operation.

    1. Re:So you put a camera on a RC model by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      A personal surveillance drone isn't of much use if you personally have to control it. Is he developing some sort of automation for it, or is it really nothing more than an RC aircraft with a camera?

  22. Re:Why you should care by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    You should care because it means that a random political science professor can hang a camera off a drone and get data.

    If I was so inclined I could drop less than $1k and buy a prebuilt drone that will run rings around this guy's drone - something that will fly a GPS plotted course and linger at various waypoints while it beamed back video. All I am seeing here is that I should pat this guy on the head, smile and go "aren't you a good boy!"

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  23. Re:Personal Surveillance? by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

    I wonder what would happen if such a device filmed the owner getting harassed by cops...

    --
    Dan
  24. ugh by nomadic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't particularly care what Francis Fukuyama does with his free time, though I guess the more time he spends working on electronics hobbies the less time he can dedicate to screwing up the world through his incompetence. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

    1. Re:ugh by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Wow, the signature list on that letter is like a Who's Who of the worst people in early 21st-century America.

      Note to mods: the parent post is not "offtopic." The story isn't about some random guy building a drone, it's about a specific guy building a drone, and just in case you missed the point, the summary links to the Wikipedia article about the guy! That makes who he is, as well as what he does, a fair topic for conversation. My guess is that whoever slapped nomadic's very insightful post with an "offtopic" mod is someone who still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea. If that's the case, then defend your postion (if you can) rather than using a weasel mod.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  25. Re:Personal Surveillance? by Amouth · · Score: 1

    if you had it always following you - even in public .. i don't think it i would be an "if" but rather a "when"

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  26. Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

    I reviewed The End of History for my Historiography final in University. It was... awful really. I found his ideas simplistic and his proofs rather poor. I'd read student papers that I found more convincing. I honestly cannot believe that it got as much attention as it did. I was also pretty depressed that I didn't get to do Fredrick Jackson Turner or someone at least vaguely interesting. On the bright side, I got to be pretty snarky in a high level university history paper and still got an "A".

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  27. He can work on his toys in jail by toby · · Score: 1

    As a neocon, his nutty ideological BS helped provide fake justifications for the attack on Iraq. Back in the 1940s this sort of thing was considered a crime. Where is the new Nuremberg trial for last decade's war criminals?

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:He can work on his toys in jail by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      You're not put on trial for war crimes unless you lose your war. It's one of the unwritten rules of diplomacy, like the flag rule.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    2. Re:He can work on his toys in jail by damienl451 · · Score: 1

      Which attack on Iraq? If you're talking about the 2004 invasion, Fukuyama actually publicly came out against the invasion and the overambitious objectives of the Bush administration.

      I wonder how many of those who criticize Fukuyama on this thread have actually read his books.

  28. Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    personal surveillance drones ?

    Any worse than the random google trucks taking pics of people taking out the trash au naturale?

    Or is this like if everyone had the power to do a wiretap on demand?

    What do you guys think

    Considering he's a Political Science Prof, it makes more sense in this early century as surveillence is all the rage for Political reasons (know your enemy, where he shops, where he buys gas and which CostCo is his favourite.)

    Us it against 'em. That's the modern way.

    I know where you were last weekend

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  29. Well Well... by 3seas · · Score: 2

    I hear Walmart will be selling them...

    Actually I think it a good idea for the hobbits to get involved in drones with paint ball guns attached ... you know for dog fighting with gov drones...

  30. UFO by legont · · Score: 1

    Here are some Russian folks combining private drones with rather impressive image tech. Anti-government meeting in Moscow http://www.airpano.ru/files/Moscow-Bolotnaya-Square-Rally/start_r.html Occupy Washington http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMzyvKzyL58&feature=player_embedded And more from around the world http://www.airpano.ru/

  31. Welcome to the old hobby professor. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Several of us have been doing this for years now. http://diydrones.com/

    I have had a self guided drone that will take off and land on it's own as well as fly to preprogrammed waypoints for over a year now. It runs off of an arduino http://www.sparkfun.com/products/8785

    ham radio ATV is the video feed and I send packet data via cellphone to control it. I am hoping to get a Android phone to make it completely cellular based for video and control to avoid the problem with using Ham radio (long range is a problem with HAM and fast scan ATV.

    I am glad a Professor has finally caught up to us hobbyests that have been dinking with it for years now.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  32. Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    And soon, wearing clothes or having opaque walls will be capitol offences.

  33. "His YouTube videos are particularly impressive." by Issarlk · · Score: 1

    You sure are easilly entertained.

  34. Re:You will all be watched ! Question here. by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    And soon, wearing clothes or having opaque walls will be capitol offences.

    Eeewww. Who wants to see naked fat senators on CSPAN?

  35. Whiskers?! by Thuktun · · Score: 1

    Reading the article summary, I suddenly imagined a few orbs floating around his body, like WSKRS in SeaQuest DSV.

    Maybe it's time for a break...

  36. Good lord! next thing you know ... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    people will be able to see me with their own eyes, just walking down the street. Oh, wait ...

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill