Slashdot Mirror


Star Wars Producers Want a 'DroneShield' To Prevent Leaks On Set

Jason Koebler writes Over the last couple of weeks, people have been flying drones over Pinewood Studios, where Star Wars Episode VII is being filmed. That made waves last week, but, perhaps most interestingly, the studio ordered a "DroneShield" back in June anticipating the drone problem. According to the company, a DroneShield can provide email and SMS warnings if it detects a helicopters or drone. In any case, the folks over at DroneShield say that Pinewood Studios never actually got the product: The State Department keeps close tabs on products like these that are shipped overseas, and the company's export application still hasn't gone through.

138 comments

  1. Surely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just declaring a no fly zone and then getting an amplifier strong enough to interupt all radio frequencies to down the drones before they get close enough would be better than "o it sends you a text" "yeah only £50,0000 such a bargain"

    1. Re:Surely by slazzy · · Score: 1

      True, it shouldn't be hard. Just say they need to be flying a real helicopter for filming and need to keep all drone traffic away for safety reasons.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    2. Re:Surely by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 2

      I doubt it's that easy to get restricted airspace put in place. Also jamming devices are generally illegal in the UK (punishable by a two year prison term and/or an unlimited fine).

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    3. Re:Surely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to misunderstand the definition of drone. A drone is capable of autonomous flying without user intervention. The drone should be sufficiently capable of following a pre-determined program and then returning.

    4. Re:Surely by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      Which leads to the current misconception of the word 'drone'. It seems, currently, anything that does not look like a traditional RC airplane (Cessna 172) is called a 'drone'. No matter how it is guided.

    5. Re: Surely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the small aerial vehicles flying over the studio are actually drones then the problem is easier to solve. Follow them back to their operator, then report them to the CAA.

      Unmanned aircraft in the UK require an operator to be flying them (no fully autonomous flight allowed) with direct line of sight.

    6. Re:Surely by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Just declaring a no fly zone

      ...is not something a movie company can just do when it feels like it.

      an amplifier strong enough to interupt all radio frequencies [...] would be

      Illegal, yes.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:Surely by Chuq · · Score: 1

      ... and this is the reason I'm always correcting people when they called my remote control quadcopter a "drone".

      --
      - Chuq
    8. Re: Surely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would suggest a movie company especially one as big would have the power to get liscences to use jammers and to request a no fly zone. I think we've all seen the effects of money on government in the UK with pirating.

    9. Re:Surely by Quasimodem · · Score: 1

      Good to know. I thought they were referring to the drones on a set of bagpipes. Those suckers would keep any airspace clear.

    10. Re:Surely by peragrin · · Score: 1

      a drone is any camera enabled RC aircraft.

      you don't need camera's on traditional RC aircraft.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re: Surely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's illegal and punishable if you're a commoner. Big, wealthy corporations are above any law.

    12. Re:Surely by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Those suckers would keep any airspace clear.

      Blowers. You BLOW through bagpipes, not suck.

      Pfffft. Kids today. Next thing you know, you'll be building horseless carriages and flying machines.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Proofreading is a waste of time by DaCo · · Score: 1

    "if it detects a helicopters or drone"

    --
    DELETE MY ACCOUNT
  3. Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to deploy some satellites over their set to shoot down any incoming bogies.

    1. Re:Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Can't they just pullout the electomagnetic shield they used in the episode with the Care Bears? Or were those Ewoks? Anyway, that seemed to prevent anything from just flying in. They can probably get it cheap out of storage.

    2. Re:Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They blew up that shield generator, don't you remember? Seems there were no spares . . .

    3. Re: Star Wars by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      "Hold your fire - there's no life forms aboard."

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Star Wars by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      They should get this guy to knock them out of the sky...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wVADKznOhY

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    5. Re: Star Wars by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Hold your fire? What? Are we paying by the laser now?

  4. I love Star Wars! by sochdot · · Score: 1

    ...so I'm going to disrupt filming of the new movie! Can you imagine how much it costs to do one take of a scene in this movie? "CUT! Fuck. Reset the $10,000 per shot animatronic thingy. There's a drone in the shot."

    --
    If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
    1. Re:I love Star Wars! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      This is star wars, though.

      "Eh... just tell the CGI guys to take it out later."

    2. Re:I love Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paparazzi don't do their work because they love the people they are shooting. These drone operators are likely expecting to get paid by the entertainment news sites which attract viewers with spoilers.

    3. Re:I love Star Wars! by fellip_nectar · · Score: 1

      Or just put some lens flare over the top of it...

      --
      Worst. Signature. Ever.
    4. Re:I love Star Wars! by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      This is star wars, though.

      "Eh... just tell the CGI guys to take it out later."

      They really should have the drones explode on even the slightest hit like the one that Chewbacca shot on Hoth in Empire Strikes Back.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    5. Re:I love Star Wars! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "These aren't the drones you're looking for."

    6. Re:I love Star Wars! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      He didn't hit it that hard. It must have had a self-destruct.

      (and it was Han)

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  5. by sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It detects it via sound? I wonder how accurate it is.

  6. The Drone Wars by PvtVoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Begun they have.

    1. Re:The Drone Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fly the drone to the target, short-circuit the lithium battery, and blooie.

      The elephant attacked by ten thousand mice doesn't last long before it's deaf, blind, and stumbling.

    2. Re:The Drone Wars by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Plot twist: This is all a big double bluff, and they deliberately set up both the familiar-looking ships and "unexpected" delay in the "shield" that would prevent the leaks. Meanwhile, the real models are being filmed on interior sets no-one knows about at a studio far, far away...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:The Drone Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Big business hates drones. Individuals love them.

      For decades, the government has been telling us "if you have nothing to hide, you should not mind the surveillance." Then suddenly they start saying "we have some serious privacy concerns here! Any stranger can take photographs of your back yard! Don't you hate that???" Well, no, since I have nothing to hide (and sure as hell wouldn't hide anything right out in the open in my back yard.

      But you have something to hide, you big government that is full of people with ties to big businesses that want to flagrantly break the law on your property and get away with it. Same for you who are so afraid of images of your production work getting out on the Internet before the movie is released (because that will somehow make your product less valuable or something).

      Now the boot is on the other foot!

    4. Re:The Drone Wars by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Its not the "individuals" that will be flying these - it'll be scumbags who want to tell you all the plot and characters and spoilers so by the time the movie comes out, you'll have seen it on various entertainment news websites.

      So its not that its less valuable for the producers, but for the public who want to see this stuff as its intended.

      I'm all for big business being brought down to size, but this is not the way to do it.

  7. Obvious solution ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    "Send in the drones!" Why not fight drones with drones? Cheaper than a stupid "drone shield" that sends you a text, probably without enough time to do anything.

    Throw in a few old-tech barrage balloons (even weather balloons will do) trailing netting (even helicopters will avoid that), some really high-powered water and potato cannons, and the odd trebuchet filled with flaming dung or politicians (same diff), and "The Making of Star Wars Episode VII" becomes more than just filler.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Obvious solution ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think the primary difficulty is detecting the drones. It's a little drone in a large sky, easy to hide.

      This is exactly the problem 'drone shield' claims to solve.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Obvious solution ... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      You can detect the drones by monitoring commonly used radio frequencies, like 433MHz, 900MHz, 1.3GHz, 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz. It's not hard to flood those frequencies with plenty of noise to disrupt control as well as video stream. I would guess these drones are not flying LOS, therefore disrupting video and telemetry would make it very difficult for a drone operator to effectively maneuver, make any interesting video, and even return the drone back to safety.

      They probably don't want drones simply because people will start taking drone footage to leak the activities happening on the ground.

    3. Re:Obvious solution ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Time to get some trained falcons (or other predators) on the job. Kind of like the search-and-rescue pigeons (I think it was pigeons) being able to sight a human bobbing in the water a lot better than a human with binoculars can.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Obvious solution ... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      There's no reason the drone needs to transmit anything while it's tasked. Programmed waypoints and actions, and it uses GPS to navigate. Switch on control comms for takeoff/landing.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Obvious solution ... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      Commonly used GPS units on drones rely on GPS lock to function. These are also radio frequencies which can be overwhelmed in small areas. I know this because using an overpowered 1.2GHz transmitter on the drone will negatively effect GPS satellite lock. Knock the sat lock down to below 6 and you got yourself a lost drone.

    6. Re:Obvious solution ... by thygate · · Score: 1

      from personal experience i can tell you that anything nearby operating around 1500 MHz (even a simple clock line or other unshielded electronics) will simply kill GPS reception completely.

    7. Re:Obvious solution ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Detection is trivial. There is this nice WWII-era thing called radar. Proper drones, rc planes and anything in-between has enough wires in them to show up nicely on radar. (more than 10cm or so of wire.) A paparazzi-operated one won't have any military-grade stealth capability.

      A radar set is cheap - you can buy one for your boat for example. Surely a movie studio can afford one. Taking out a drone can be done with a shotgun, ram it with a real helicopter, or shine laser pointers at it till the camera sensor is trash.

    8. Re:Obvious solution ... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      That, and no lunch for your crew when the caterer's can't navigate to your site. :)

      Inverse square is also a problem - those drones can be rather high so unless you know where it is and can use a directional antenna, you have to broadcast a very strong omnidirectional GPS jammer. The drone can also use a directional antenna that rejects signals from below, which means that you need to use even more power. When nearby aircraft start having navigation issues, you might start getting complaints about that.

      The drone operation is clandestine and likely run by a few individuals with little money, while your GPS jamming operation is broadcasting a strong signal while being owned by a huge corporation with deep pockets. The studio can't really afford to get into games like this if it creates either legal or liability exposure. Heck, they're having to deal with export controls just to get drone-monitoring equipment - do you think the people flying the drones have to deal with export controls?

    9. Re:Obvious solution ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You can detect the drones by monitoring commonly used radio frequencies, like 433MHz, 900MHz, 1.3GHz, 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz. It's not hard to flood those frequencies with plenty of noise to disrupt control as well as video stream.

      It is very hard to do what you propose legally.

    10. Re:Obvious solution ... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      Typical drone ground stations w will use circular polarized, directional antennas for live video signal, however you won't have a CP directional on the drone (for obvious reasons) and will use omni directional instead (not very directional). This means that it's pretty easy to disrupt a 1.3, 2.4 and 5.8GHz signal (or even 900MHz) with simple, cheap hobby gear when you're closer to the drone than the operator.

      For control (usually 433MHz or 2.4GHz), you won't be using directional antennas on either end-point. Therefore, it's pretty simple to disrupt that signal using cheap, hobby gear as well.

      You're right about the GPS when using autopilot and waypoints, that's another story. GPS receivers on most drones can only be disrupted when there's a strong RF signal (or resulting harmonic) in the drone's near vicinity. I'm not sure what kind of gear you would need to blast a point in the sky with ~1500MHz to disrupt the GPS.

    11. Re:Obvious solution ... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to flood those frequencies with plenty of noise

      It may not be hard, but it is illegal.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    12. Re: Obvious solution ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may not have a clear understanding of the basic workings of the world, so let me explain it in very simple terms: the legality of an action is directly proportional to the amount of money at the disposal of the committing party. When you have little money, even breathing can be illegal. When you're very wealthy, you're untouchable. End of discussion.

    13. Re: Obvious solution ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to see you switch on the AC when you wanna be a douchetard, golotha.

  8. Low-tech solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hire a couple of rednecks with shotguns to stand guard. Payment in beer and high cholesterol food.

    1. Re:Low-tech solution by Megane · · Score: 1

      Even better low-tech solution: camoflauge cover. I saw that pic of the half-built Millennium Falcon the other day. Completely open to the sky.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  9. We know the movies will suck already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If drones can delay the filming that's probably the most legitimate use for the damned things.

  10. overthinking the problem by xeno · · Score: 1

    They're overthinking the problem. It's in Georgia. All's ya need to do is give BillyBob's thousand-year-old grampy a decent slingshot and a bucket of marbles, and tell him you'll pay him $250 every time he can hit one of those tiny little gummint spy planes.

    Better yet, get him to tell his fishing buddies about the prize, and his buddies, etc... until you have a low level permeation thru the community. Just remember to pay 'em (and pay out of the set's lunch fund on an obfuscated line item that says something suitably snarky like "humble pie" or "tasty crow".) Oh, and tell 'em old guys: you can't eat what you catch, but you can resell the parts on ebay.... :)

    --
    I think not...(*poof*)
    1. Re:overthinking the problem by Dahan · · Score: 1

      They're overthinking the problem. It's in Georgia.

      TFS talks about not being able to get an export license, so we know it's not in Georgia (unless you mean the country). And TFA says it's in the UK (which is where Pinewood's main studio is... they did recently open a location near Atlanta, Georgia though).

    2. Re:overthinking the problem by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      uh... Pinewood's in Buckinghamshire.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    3. Re:overthinking the problem by xeno · · Score: 1

      Ah, dammit. My bad.
      I did a bunch of work in Atlanta, and Pinewood Atlanta Studios (a good sized film/sound stage facility over 1/2 square mile in Fayetteville, Georgia) is just "Pinewood Studios" over there...

      --
      I think not...(*poof*)
    4. Re:overthinking the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shotguns? I'm sure they can find some clay-pigeon shooters in that area.

    5. Re:overthinking the problem by X0563511 · · Score: 1
      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:overthinking the problem by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      uh... Pinewood's in Buckinghamshire.

      Yes, but TFA refers to Greenham Common, which is in Berkshire.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:overthinking the problem by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Georgia? The locals will do it for free if you spread the rumor that "Obama's commie drones are coming to take your guns away and spray you with 'gay gas'."

  11. White House by John+Jorsett · · Score: 2

    This makes me wonder how the White House and other high-profile government locations' security staffs deal with this issue. It's got to be a problem there as well, probably moreso as a drone could be armed, not just doing movie set recon. I have to think that there must have been recent incidents, but I've not seen any news accounts.

    1. Re:White House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal jammers.

    2. Re:White House by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      the US Government use UCAVs to keep the airspace around DC clear. These are generally armed with air to air missiles for larger targets such as helicopters and scattershots for smaller aircraft such as drones. The safety is in the operator flying from a desk, other than that it's a crapshoot as to when (not if) one of these things'll drop its payload onto a busload of schoolchildren.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    3. Re:White House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that I disbelieve you but it seems like we would have heard about a drone being spectacularly shot down over the White House by now.

      I'm also surprised that drones have not buzzed the visit of the President at his various outings.

      People are already filming live NFL games, just surprised nobody has gone further.

    4. Re:White House by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Illegal jammers.

      It's only illegal if you can't get a waiver from the FCC
      I imagine the Secret Service would have less trouble than most in getting permission.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:White House by Animats · · Score: 2

      the US Government use UCAVs to keep the airspace around DC clear.

      Actually, the current response to airspace incursions in the DC area is an F-16 and a Coast Guard helicopter. The F-16 is in case it turns out to be hostile, and the Coast Guard helicopter is for the usual case, which is a clueless VFR pilot who needs directions. This happens several times a week. The FAA now insists that all pilots operating within 60 miles of DC (actually 60NM of the DCA VOR) take this online course. Amazingly, there are still clueless pilots wandering into this airspace, although fewer than a few years ago.

  12. Why not stronger punishments for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people who publish spoilers? They have ruined modern movies by constantly posting pictures and stories from movies before they're released. We get it. You hate Star Wars and want to ruin it for everyone. The legal system should be used to put a stop to that. We all know that Republicans hate entertainment, and no one is stopping them from leaking all of this media that has already ruined the next Star Wars movie.

    1. Re:Why not stronger punishments for... by bmo · · Score: 2

      all of this media that has already ruined the next Star Wars movie.

      The only thing that has ruined a Star Wars movie is George Lucas.

      http://redlettermedia.com/plin... - the best ever deconstructions of Star Wars that are more entertaining than those movies ever were.

      Watch and learn, Grasshopper.

      For a shorter version:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Why not stronger punishments for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the death sentence for movie spoilers appropriate?

      The entertainment industry already owns the legal system.

  13. Simple, politically incorrect solution by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    Hire a few veterans with sniper training (or hunters if you can't find them) to sit on the edges of the set with 30.06 rifles. Perfectly legal to shoot down an unauthorized drone that intentionally flies onto your property to do surveillance in most states.

    1. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good thing you read the article where it talks about how pinewood studies is in Buckinghamshire, England.

      I don't think they have "states" there, and i am pretty sure their gun laws are not the same as the US.

    2. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's pretty hard to legally buy a gun in the UK. You need a license, and they aren't available to just anyone who asks like in the US. You need to demonstrate a legitimate reason to own a gun (Self-defense doesn't count - pest control or organised sports shooting will do), and then there are some background checks to go through. There's even a requirement for a doctor's certificate of competence (ie, no mental illness) and a police inspection of the intended firearms storage area to ensure it is secure.

      It's really quite good for annoying the gun-rights people in the US, because it's the type of totalitarian nightmare they fear - and it works. Our murder rate is a fraction of that in the US. Gun crime is exceedingly rare. We've not had a school shooting since 1996. The country is so safe, even our police don't carry guns - they have no need to, because they'll hardly ever encounter a criminal carrying one.

    3. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by RobertLTux · · Score: 2

      So get the local group of "merry men" to have some fun with LongBows.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    4. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is BS. There is a knife murder almost weekly in London.

    5. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      Who are you even replying to?

    6. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer people - trained or not - refrain from firing high-power rifles at airborne targets.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is BS. There is a knife murder almost weekly in London.

      ...and there was 1 a week in NYC too. Also, there were about 19 gun murders a week. We celebrated when the annual murder tally dropped below 1,000 a year.

    8. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by rossdee · · Score: 1

      I think even Robin Hood would have difficulty hitting a moving, aerial target.

    9. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I was drawing attention to MikeRT's obvious mistake (Assuming everything happens in the US) by providing an over-detailed account of why this renders his suggestion invalid.

    10. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patriot Arrows.

    11. Re:Simple, politically incorrect solution by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Depends on what kind of LongBow you mean.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    12. Re: Simple, politically incorrect solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switzerland is a way better country than the UK can ever hope to be. It's not hard to get a gun there if you have a clean record. Crime is even lower than in the UK and usually committed by foreigners. Of course, Swiss people are also better educated than limeys with their quaint nobility and shit. They also do not enact massive surveillance on their people or gun down innocent civilians for being "electrician while brazilian".

  14. *waves hand* by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Funny

    These aren't the drones you're looking for.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:*waves hand* by Livius · · Score: 2

      Actually, these are the drones the producers are looking for. But the stormtroopers are incapable of hitting anything.

    2. Re:*waves hand* by Megane · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, you are the one droids are looking for!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:*waves hand* by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I'm looking at your 'roids. Happy now?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  15. Obviously Laser cannons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do they want these laser turrets for?

  16. Begun by citizenr · · Score: 1

    Begun The Drone War Has

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  17. British problem. British solution. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    Barrage balloons. String some blimps up on cables around the property, hang nets from the cables. It's legal, passive, safe - and only the most skilled of drone pilots could reliably navigate the maze without getting their rotors tangled. Plus the studio gets some free drones - somehow I don't imagine many of the pilots will be asking for their return.

    1. Re:British problem. British solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American solution:

      Get a bunch of wackos with shotguns and lasers. They are not in short supply... the wackos, that is.

    2. Re:British problem. British solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One problem with this solution: these things will be visible on every shot that shows some part of the sky around the studio. Removing that in postproduction would cost a lot.

    3. Re:British problem. British solution. by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      you really think the shots of the sky won't already be changed in post-production? Or that a nice summer day sky scene with airplane contrails would fit nicely into a Tatooine sunset scene?

    4. Re:British problem. British solution. by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      Dress them as stormtroopers and they and the drones could might as well be part of the movie!

  18. Easy DroneShield countermeasure by Molt · · Score: 4, Funny

    "These are not the drones you are looking for.."

    --
    404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
  19. Underthinking the problem ... by golodh · · Score: 1
    As usual with BillyBob and his "coussins", the other extreme is *under-thinking* the problem.

    The problem is to find those drones in the first place, especially if they're coming in low and slow, or high enough to be out of slingshot range.

    The "droneshield" thingy seems to tackle the problem by analysing ambient sounds. From the webpage the article refers to:

    Drones present many threats to military and homeland security forces and facilities. "Low, Slow, and Small" UAS are a growing threat that legacy CUAS will not detect. DroneShield compliments (sic) radar and RF detection systems against smaller, low signature UAS because acoustic emissions are difficult to conceal or spoof.

    So it tells you if it hears a drone buzzing nearby, which is useful, ... but it doesn't (yet) do target-acquisition for BillyBob's anti-drone-slingshot batteries.

  20. Normal countermeasures don't work by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    The drones are so small they're avoiding the turbo lasers.

    They'll have to destroy them ship to ship.

  21. Most complicated solution is the best solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One could use a radar system coupled with a low power laser pointer and a decent aiming computer. Like a CIWS, only with a blinding laser instead of a 20mm gatling gun. Prevents pictures from being taken, doesn't risk destroying anything.

    Or they could just use the gatling gun instead and utterly obliterate the offending drone

    1. Re:Most complicated solution is the best solution! by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "Or they could just use the gatling gun instead and utterly obliterate the offending drone"

      Triple A can cause collateral damage. Espescially if its using depleted uranium slugs.

  22. Easier attack angle - kites or pilots by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    "Send in the drones!" Why not fight drones with drones?

    I feel like a way better attack vector would be a computer controlled kite. Between a string reaching all the way to the ground almost invisible to see, and a bunch of long streaming tails from the kite to foul rotors - you could do pretty well, if you can find the drone.

    I would think though it would be more effective to hire goons to hang around anywhere open and with a line of sight to the area over the filming. Kind of a different take on the XKCD $5 wrench encryption cracking strategy.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  23. Didn't Reagan start a Star Wars defense system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That should do.

  24. UK regulations by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    I would guess these drones are not flying LOS, therefore disrupting video and telemetry would make it very difficult for a drone operator to effectively maneuver, make any interesting video, and even return the drone back to safety.

    This is in the UK, where there are clear legal requirements if you want to operate a drone. People can be and have been prosecuted for violating them.

    So it is highly unlikely that any such drones were flying without LOS at close range or that they would be used by any reputable commercial surveillance firm without permission. As the cases mentioned above demonstrate, someone who violates the rules may well wind up in court with a hefty fine, and the authorities aren't going to look sympathetically on any excuses about losing control of the aircraft or being somewhere it shouldn't be accidentally.

    By the way, responding to drones by disrupting frequencies using jammers as you suggested would, as a minimum, probably land you in hot water with the communications regulators yourself.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:UK regulations by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt that the drones spying in on the Star Wars set are being operated by a reputable commercial surveillance firm. In fact, I doubt they're being operated by someone who cares about the drone operation legal regulations either.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:UK regulations by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's probably just kids with Phantoms doing crap they shouldn't be doing in the first place - not serious hobbyists.

    3. Re:UK regulations by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's no secret who filmed the footage or what they were doing at the time: they spotted the studio by accident while doing publicity shots for a local flight school. It seems a safe bet that the drone flight in question would be compliant with the CAA rules.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:UK regulations by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Would you say that these kids with Phantoms are a menace?

      *ducks and runs out of the room*

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  25. Out of range by Animats · · Score: 1

    Take a look at the video. The drone is at least 1000 feet up. If it's painted dull colors, you probably can't even see it from the ground.

    1. Re:Out of range by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. This would be like the Taliban telling their field commanders to just station soldiers with sniper rifles to shoot down F-15s. If you want to shoot down a drone which is taking steps to be hard to shoot down, you'll need a radar-controlled anti-aircraft battery or missile system. I hear they're selling them at the grocery stores in Eastern Ukraine.

  26. To all the drone pilots by TomR+teh+Pirate · · Score: 1

    in the words of William Shatner, "Get a life".

  27. Re:get online jobs by TomR+teh+Pirate · · Score: 2

    Posting to message boards is costing you time when instead you too could be making $85 / hour. Stupid bots.

  28. Fly a drone over my Property I dare you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a crack shot and if I can see it I am going to shoot it down.

  29. Couldn't they just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Send up a few x-wings after them?

  30. huh, who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a fucking break, who gives a damn shit. It's not a cure, it's not a super galactic spaceship, it's not cold fusion, it's just a fucking movie that will end up on DVD for $19.

  31. Killer Drones by careysub · · Score: 1

    I sense a business opportunity here: killer drones!

    These would be designed to go after and knock down the hovering picture-snapping kind, which would be easy pickings. The killer drones don't need to hover - they fly faster than the hovering kind and just go straight at 'em. Some kind of netting or framework to snag and entangle the drone rotors perhaps. Option of either hauling it back as evidence, or in true bird of prey fashion just applying a "killing blow" and letting it fall to the ground. Developing different kill mechanisms should be fun. Robot wars in the air!

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    1. Re:Killer Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drop the killer, use 'Air Superiority Drone".

      It gets the point across, and appeals to armchairforce generals, to boot.

  32. You're going to need a bigger shield. by Lohrno · · Score: 1

    Why could someone theoretically not just launch a balloon outside the shield perimeter with a zoom lens capable of looking in on this?

    Also, why are people going to such lengths for spoilers? To me, a true fan is someone who is willing to wait for the full experience with the wonder of not knowing ahead of time how things are going to pan out.

  33. how about stop caring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about we stop caring about the damn franchise and stop giving them free advertising for every form of social media?

  34. Easy solution to export restrictions! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They wouldn't have to deal with export restrictions if they would just film in the USA. It is likely this movie's credits will end much like most other recent movies with a statement that "production and legal distribution of this film resulted in over 10,000 jobs." However, they refuse to give a break down on the exact details of those 10,000 jobs. How many of them are domestic? How many are overseas? What is the average hourly income across all those jobs?

    It is upsetting to keep being hit with statements how much Hollywood helps the economy when the VFX industry in the USA has crashed. There is more visual effects used in movies than ever before but less of it is actually done at home even if the movie was filmed in the USA.

    If the MPAA wants to pat itself on the back for all the jobs they create, then maybe they should also be required to put "Made in China" (India, Korea, Ukraine, etc) just like all other products.

    The truth is, they don't mind jobs being stolen away from the USA, they just don't like when someone other than them is doing the "stealing." Americans are no longer hired for high skilled tasks like visual effects, but at least part of those 10,000 jobs are taking the ticket stubs at minimum wage! Great job MPAA!

  35. Disney doesn't own the airspace. by bjwest · · Score: 1

    Sorry Disney, you don't own the airspace. If you want to be outdoors in private, you build a fence. If there's a building or hill with a view of your property, oh well. Someone wants to fly over the property? Oh well. If you want privacy of that nature, film indoors or use a tarp of some kind. You have no right to stop people from exercising their rights, and you have no right to privacy if you can be seen from a public location.

    This is one of the main reasons for the push to limit drone operation in the U.S. It has nothing to do with public safety, it has everything to do with corporate secrecy.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
    1. Re:Disney doesn't own the airspace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. They may not own the airspace but if you put up an eight foot tall privacy fence, flying a drone up to look over that fence and take pictures is already illegal in most jurisdictions under existing peeping/stalking laws. Since the pilots generally have to be within line-of-sight (most hobby drones I have seen have a range under 300 feet), just call the police and have them picked up. I don't want creepy jerks like this ruining it for other people using hobby drones responsibly.

      Someone wants to fly over the property? Oh well.

      Again that is already illegal in many states (it is called trespassing) and several states (like Texas) have specifically passed anti-drone laws.

    2. Re:Disney doesn't own the airspace. by PPH · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with public safety, it has everything to do with corporate secrecy.

      Yeah, but you aren't going to get that much sympathy for defending your right to spy on studio lots. Corporate secrecy is a bad thing when it conceals illegal waste dumping, logging, environmental hazards, etc. But if you get all butthurt over not getting snaps of your favorite plywood spacheship, people will fail to give a shit in pretty short order.

      Its a valuable right. Don't go fucking it up for everyone.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Disney doesn't own the airspace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of these 'states' are in the UK? Where the article is talking about.
      Wouldn't need much of a fence to hide things from the likes of you...

  36. Who cares.... seriously. by seanvaandering · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm somewhat a Star Wars fan... and I'm like most people - I may have a passing curiosity on the developments in the movie, and might click a link here and there, but for the most part, I don't really care about every little inner workings of the movie, which is still very much in development. Even if I saw a X-Wing fighter.. and gasped that there will be X-Wing fighters in the movie... it doesn't really mean anything at this point because no one really knows the whole storyboard and plot of the movie. If anything these drones are giving the movie additional free advertising that can't be bought, but if you think this in any way will spoil the movie when it's released is ludicrous at best.

  37. Binks it! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Erect a giant Jar Jar, then the fanboys will be all pissed and lose interest in snooping. Solved!

  38. Taliban marksmanship by swb · · Score: 1

    I thought the apocryphal story of Taliban marksmanship was the discovery of a weakness in Mi-24 "Hind" helicopter tails or tail rotors. The Taliban would then mass fire from their Lee-Enfields on this spot, bringing down the Hinds.

  39. My shield is called `Bob` as in: The Duck Hunter . by fygment · · Score: 1

    Bob`s a neighbour with a semi-automatic, double-barrel, under-over, 12 gauge shotgun.

    Bob likes to shoot quail, duck, skeet, highway signs, and drones.

    I asked Bob, ``How can you shoot someone`s expensive drone?"
    He replied, " Easy. You just have to lead 'em a little more."

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  40. Might do a BETTER JOB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since apk made you "Run, Forrest: RUN" from proving his points wrong http://slashdot.org/comments.p... on hosts files massive superiority to adblock, which you FAILED in doing, troll sockpuppetmaster that you are BarbaraHudson http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu... = http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... + http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2...

  41. BarbHudson says "send in the sockpuppets" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  42. Not just export controls by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    I would hope that they need import permits for anything beyond a passive monitor.

    As for all the idiots suggesting signal jammers and even GPS blockers, no chance. It's doubtful that you would get away with using them in most of your own country although big money is more effective there. In this country, even big money finds it harder. You would need some help from the police at least but would be a little more likely to succeed if you had military or spook help.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  43. Re:My shield is called `Bob` as in: The Duck Hunte by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    Not viable in civilised countries.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  44. FOAD APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK, you are the dumbest troll ever to haunt Slashdot. May you rot in internet hell.

    1. Re:FOAD APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barb, you stalkin apk by ac posts again? (yes) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  45. cooo cooo coooooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that ever body's dun told ya how stoopid ya are, how's that there crow taste, ya redneck hatin bastard!

  46. Shield? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Rebel Alliance will deactivate it...

  47. Obvious solution ... by shonangreg · · Score: 1

    I'd think a modified shotgun shell (or a compressed air version for the UK) stuffed with fine netting with a few weights attached would easily be able to take down any drones flying at less than 30 meters or so. Japan developed such a "spiderman-gun" for holligans in the Nagano Olympics years ago. For higher-flying drones, an anti-drone drone that could drop a net from above would also work. In either case, though, you'd have drones falling from the sky.

  48. Re:My shield is called `Bob` as in: The Duck Hunte by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

    Not viable in civilised countries.

    So, it'll work in America?

  49. good example.. by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    This is a good example why drones should be banned.. Now it's trying to get some eyes on filming of a big budget movie, but drones can (and are) also be used to peeping tom..
    Whenever I see a drone over my property, it'll receive a nice buckshot.. Oh sorry I've mistaken it for my claypigeon..
    Drones are nothing more than an RC airplane, and where I live you cannot fly those over populated area's, only on special assigned area's (mostly farmland)..
    Because people can fly a simple drone with a camera now, doesn't mean people should be allowed to..

  50. So like this maybe? by Pherdnut · · Score: 1
  51. Re:My shield is called `Bob` as in: The Duck Hunte by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    If you are not from the USA, that would be a pretty tactless thing to say here.
    If you are from the USA, be careful where you say that.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  52. Re:My shield is called `Bob` as in: The Duck Hunte by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, it's a joke.