Secret Service Investigating Small Drone On White House Grounds

An anonymous reader sends word that the Secret Service is investigating a "device," described as a small drone, found on the grounds of the White House. "A small drone was found on the White House grounds overnight, two law enforcement sources told ABC News, but White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the situation 'does not pose any sort of ongoing threat.' The Secret Service is investigating the device, Earnest said. Police, fire and other emergency vehicles swarmed around the White House in the pre-dawn hours, with several clustered near the southeast entrance to the mansion. The White House was dark and the entire perimeter was on lockdown until around 5 a.m., when pass holders who work in the complex were allowed inside."

Comments

What's the problem?

[Slashjones]

They don't seem to have any issues spying on the rest of us and ignoring our privacy. What's the harm in a drone?

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that no one saw it coming in. It all fun and games until someone rigs it with explosives and damages something or someone. This could have been a proof of concept attempt.

Re:What's the problem?

[soccerisgod]

Bug bomb activating, Thodin!

Re:What's the problem?

[Peter Simpson]

They don't seem to have any issues spying on the rest of us and ignoring our privacy. What's the harm in a drone?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and guess that he's not going to be getting that back...

Re:What's the problem?

[circletimessquare]

explosives?

chemicals my friend

wouldn't take much of the right kind. nice aerosolizer already provided by the craft

biologic if you're exotic

nuclear just plain stupider

but for maximum shits and giggles and no loss of life, i'd load a degaussing coil on a drone and fly it through a target office. do a little tap over all the workstations to get the hard drives

oh shit, am i on some list now?

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chemicals: nope, it takes more than You think it does. Especially from outside. Most likely just an annoyance.

Biologicals: Requires closer contact, but less stuff. Most likely just an annoyance.

Nuclear: May contaminate a small area from outside. Mostly just an annoyance.

Degausser small enough to be carried by a quadcopter small enough to sneak in: Only degausses itself.

Re:What's the problem?

[ColdWetDog]

You're on the 'I flunked physics last week list'.

A degaussing coil big enough to fry hard drives on drone?

That's one impressive drone there....

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

Nonsense. This is some kid that lost control of their toy. Any halfway professional attempt of testing things would not have lost the drone and nothing would have been found.

Re:What's the problem?

[westlake]

What's the harm in a drone?

That depends on the payload.

Military grade C-4 is commonly packaged as the M112 demolition block. The demolition charge M112 is a rectangular block of Composition C-4 approximately 2 inches by 1.5 inches and 11 inches long, weighing 1.25 lb (0.57 kg.)

C-4 (explosive)

Recipes for homemade C4 can be found on most any Doomsday Prepper site.

How to make C4 with RDX Explosives

Re:What's the problem?

[wonkey_monkey]

Any halfway professional attempt of testing things would not have lost the drone

How can you be so sure? Perhaps they pushed the range too far and/or there was some unexpected interference. The point of a test, after all, is to check for the kind of things you haven't predicted.

That aside, why couldn't it be a less than halfway professional proof of concept attempt?

Lastly, maybe ascertaining/provoking the security response to a drone on the lawn was the point.

Re:What's the problem?

[blackraven14250]

I'm thinking you overestimate the payload capacity of drones, at least for quadcopters (as opposed to plane-styles, which I know nearly nothing about, but would likely be terrifying without any explosive payload if it went full speed into the capital dome). One of the most popular large models for carrying heavier payloads, the DJI Phantom 2, can carry about 320g reliably. That is, it won't be sluggish and unable to compensate for wind gusts at that kind of payload. The thing is, this drone is *big*. I doubt the drone in the story was larger than a Syma X11 or similar toy, which you'd be hard-pressed to even see coming, tops out at about 15g of payload, can't compensate for more than about 10mph wind gusts, and won't hear outdoors in a city unless it gets within 5 feet or so. A Phantom, OTOH, is large enough to see and hear at a distance, and slow enough to shoot down. There's also a huge price difference, as a Phantom is over $1000, while one of those toy drones is in the $50 ballpark. In other words, this is only really a major threat when explosives advance to the point where you can fit that C4 block's charge into a 15g, 2" x 2" package.

Re:What's the problem?

[LWATCDR]

http://www.hobbyexpress.com/12...

Can carry several pounds of payload. Of course it would probably be pretty noticeable
As too shooting it down? That may cause more damage than the plane would.

I really wish people would stop using drones for most of these. They are simply RC Aircraft that have been around since the 1940s. Nothing really new or scary.

Re:What's the problem?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Perhaps a curious professional decided to sound out the White House defense perimeter, and ran afoul of the top secret drone death ray. If you're planning to fly a drone near or into a site as well guarded as the White House for some specific purpose, this is exactly what you'd do: try with an inexpensive and harmless drone first, masquerading as a hobbyist.

Re:What's the problem?

[cyberchondriac]

Anthrax would be scarier and more damaging than a small explosive. I still remember the postal scare from 2002. If a hate/terrorist group manages to fly a drone or three through a window, (not sure if the White House allows those, at least, without bars), with a payload of anthrax, and that could get real ugly. Perhaps even ricin, though then again that seems to be nigh impossible to aerosolize. In any case, I don't think it's wise to get too wound up about them, but OTOH, it's not wise to get completely complacent either and trivialize the damage a drone could potentially do; people get creative.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

Bullshit. Any halfway competent engineer would have though of all that and made sure it does not happen. Really, you have no clue how professionals work.

A "less than halfway competent" attempt is no danger.

As for finding the drone being the intended effect, that makes only sense for a false-flag operation. It is a possibility, but there _still_ is no danger.

Really, stop being stupid. Stop spreading fear.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

I cannot determine whether you are trying to be funny or whether you are utterly demented...

Re:What's the problem?

[cavreader]

It would have been interesting if the drone was detected and they actually tried to shoot it down using the ground to air missile battery installed around the WH. Talk about massive overkill. They are going to end firing the rest of the current Secret Service agents who kept their jobs after the last security breach when someone actually made it into the WH. This drone serves as an excellent proof of concept and the next one might not be so benign.

Re:What's the problem?

[wonkey_monkey]

Any halfway competent engineer would have though of all that and made sure it does not happen.

I guess the guys behind SpaceX's last landing attempt weren't halfway competent, then? Obviously they should have made sure a crash couldn't happen before attempting a landing. What a bunch of idiots.

You can't make sure that absolutely nothing will go wrong. That's the only certainty. Any halfway competent engineer would know that.

A "less than halfway competent" attempt is no danger.

There isn't some magical line of competency below which all plans are automatically doomed to failure. You seem to think only in binary terms, or at least you phrase your comments in that way.

Not to mention that the "good guys" in this case have shown themselves to be less than competent on more than one recent occasion.

Really, stop being stupid. Stop spreading fear.

Actually what I'm mainly trying to do is provide a little counterpoint to your somewhat arrogant insistence that you are definitely 100% correct.

Re:What's the problem?

[Half-pint HAL]

The fact that no one saw it coming in. It all fun and games until someone rigs it with explosives and damages something or someone. This could have been a proof of concept attempt.

Could have been... but probably wasn't. I'm guessing it was a $50 Walmart toy. Why? Because it ran out of batteries without warning while over the White House lawn and the owner couldn't reclaim it because of the security fence. Larger drones have battery warnings and some even have GPS-guided return-to-base functions on low battery.

Using a micro-quad is no proof-of-concept at all, as it wouldn't be able to carry a sufficient payload, and your goal would be to verify that a copter large enough to deliver a considerable amount of explosives could approach without being detected. Such a model would also be equipped with autonomous GPS guidance (so the operator can escape before it does the deed) and wouldn't land on the lawn. Even if the operator chose to abandon the test vehicle, it would be programmed to ditch outside the security cordon, specifically to avoid the current situation, because they are now trying to determine how to prevent repeat occurrences. (ie a proof of concept that alerts the target to the possibility is no use at all. It's as stupid as shining a laser sight through someone's window the day before the assassination attempt, telling the target to hide.)

Re:What's the problem?

[blackraven14250]

Yeah, about a 12 foot wingspan prop plane.....it'll get shot down long before it gets near a target like the WH. I think the guy from Ohio actually had the best concept for trying this type of attack - small amount of explosives on a jet-style RC that would be fast moving (I've seen them go up past 400mph) and hard to hit, and is more likely to actually make it inside of the building since you could aim for the glass.

On the WH specifically, I doubt you'd be able to have even a few pounds of C4 do significant damage to the building from the outside - it's not exactly a soft target built like a standard house, where 4 pounds of C4 might completely demolish it from the outside. The entire building is at a minimum bulletproof, and the walls are likely backed by blast panels. That was one of the most troubling things about the guy who ran inside, IMO. If the threat is outside of the WH, there's not much to worry about unless they're carrying a small nuke or flying a jetliner into it. If the threat is inside the WH, though, they can cause a massive amount of damage with just a gun, or a small quantity of relatively easy to access explosives.

Re: What's the problem?

[Half-pint HAL]

Degausser small enough to be carried by a quadcopter small enough to sneak in: Only degausses itself.

Also fritzes the magnetic field running the rotor motors, causing the quadcopter to crash.

Re:What's the problem?

[Half-pint HAL]

I guess the guys behind SpaceX's last landing attempt weren't halfway competent, then? Obviously they should have made sure a crash couldn't happen before attempting a landing. What a bunch of idiots.

Ah yes, because a brand-new experimental test craft is exactly the same as an off-the-shelf remote controlled vehicle owned and tested by thousands of hobbyists across the world.

Or do you think that the unusual flatness of the White House lawn makes it a uniquely difficult environment to fly over....?

Re:What's the problem?

[LWATCDR]

Actually a plane like the Telemaster would be better than a jet. Paint it grey so it blends in and if possible use an electric motor.
It would fly too low and too slow to be shot down. I do not think that they would use SAMs to attack a model aircraft at 100ft over a city since you would probably kill more people from the sam blast than the plane.
At this point I will stop since I do not want to give anyone ideas but I would not use such an aircraft to attack the WH.

Re:What's the problem?

[afidel]

Which brings up an interesting point, the WH doesn't seem to have an intermediate defense against things like small aircraft, cruise missiles, or mortars (the IRA attacked #10 downing street with mortars). I wonder why they don't add CIWS to the roof as a complement to the manpads which are intended for larger aircraft?

Re:What's the problem?

[ZeroWaiteState]

I can't imagine where someone would have gotten the idea to put explosives on a flying drone. It would take a very sick mind to design such a thing, to say nothing of unleashing it on civilians outside a combat zone. The very notion is vicious and cowardly---we are seeing the new face of evil in our modern era. Is there no end to what violent extremists will do?

Re:What's the problem?

[alvinrod]

What if the goal was merely to see how the security team would react?

I'll agree that it's unlikely that this is anything other than a lost drone with no nefarious intentions behind it crashing/landing on the grounds of the White House, but to completely rule out any ulterior motive, especially for individuals running security isn't reasonable. If nothing else, it should at least force them to come up with a policy or security measures. Sometimes a pure accident has some beneficial outcomes.

Re:What's the problem?

[Obfuscant]

I'm guessing it was a $50 Walmart toy. Why?

Because people on /. love to guess about details when those guesses can be used to ridicule or embarrass someone.

Because it ran out of batteries without warning while over the White House lawn and the owner couldn't reclaim it because of the security fence. Larger drones have battery warnings and some even have GPS-guided return-to-base functions on low battery.

A group I know recently took three quads to a beach to do some scientific research. Bought with limited funds so they aren't just toys, they're tools that need to be used properly and maintained for multiple uses.

Only one came back. Two of them wound up in the ocean.

Low battery return functions only work if they trigger far enough in advance that they can make it back to safety. The one I have (a $500 DJI) has such a function. The last time I flew it to "low battery", it had about enough battery left to make a controlled descent from directly overhead. Even if it had sufficient battery, the return algorithm is to climb to 20' and then fly to home and then descend. There's no sensors in the quad to notice that there's a 30' tree or building betwixt it and home.

Using a micro-quad is no proof-of-concept at all, as it wouldn't be able to carry a sufficient payload,

Except as a proof-of-concept regarding GPS jamming around a sensitive target, or to determine the security response to such an event. Not every 'proof of concept' has to deal exclusively with the specific hardware being tested, it can be a "proof of concept" for the entire process.

(ie a proof of concept that alerts the target to the possibility is no use at all.

I'm sorry, but you're assuming the security around the whitehouse is run by morons who couldn't imagine the use of a simple quad. I'm going to guess that they probably already know about the possibility.

It's as stupid as shining a laser sight through someone's window the day before the assassination attempt, telling the target to hide.

You're assuming that the pre-planned response if someone shines a laser pointer through Potus' window is to have the President of the US hide for the next few days. Somehow I doubt that's the reaction you'd get when you try it. For a bad guy, it would be valuable to know what the response IS to such an event, so that during any potential confusion some other method of attack can be used to accomplish whatever goal is desired.

You know, if you're going to try to do something bad to someone who is well defended, it is important to probe the responses so you can determine weaknesses or what other things you'll have to deal with.

As far as the size of the drone, I recall an episode of one of the recently ubiquitous gun-shop television shows where they designed and built a quad with a gun. It wasn't a huge quad they needed to carry that weight. They were also carrying a lot of extra weight since they were using a stock handgun. Get rid of all the useless stuff, like the stock, the magazine, etc, until you have a simple tube with a firing pin and it would weigh a lot less. A single-use barrel, thermal firing, you could probably get it down to weigh less than a GoPro. You could probably 3-D print the thing as part of the quad's chassis.

Re:What's the problem?

[sjames]

Meanwhile, I'm picturing a sad kid lamenting that his cool Christmas present barely lasted a month...

Re:What's the problem?

[wonkey_monkey]

Oh? And where did I claim that?

When you declared the proposed - admittedly unlikely - scenario to be first "nonsense" and then "bullshit." And also when you stated as apparent fact that "[t]his is some kid that lost control of their toy" which I would otherwise dismiss as mere emphasis if it wasn't for your generally churlish attitude.

But now you're saying you could - however unlikely that may be - be wrong?

If people with your antagonistic style of rebuttal were to try crying "bullshit" less often and replacing it something along the lines of "that's extremely unlikely and here's why," people might actually pay a bit more attention to their arguments.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

Clearly I was voicing _opinions_! You know, things people think may be right but do not claim as truth. Apparently you have problems with the concept. Attributes like "bullshit" or "nonsense" clearly mark opinions, not statements of fact.

You seem to have some rather serious problem interpreting what people say. I mean that not in the sense that I am trying to insult you, but in the sense that I detect an actual perception problem on your side. Maybe get that looked at, it could help you avoid serious misinterpretations of what people say on the future.

Re:What's the problem?

[reboot246]

Live by the sword; die by the sword.
Or . . . what's good for the goose . . .
Or any other old cliche that may fit the situation.

Re:What's the problem?

[rtb61]

The self targeting computer payload is the dangerous part. Just get it near the target and let it go. Countries of course will be able to do more with drones or more accurately aerial mines. For example incorporating the explosive within the battery, so that between individual storage cells you have a layer of explosive material and so that you can incorporate the battery metals in the high speed burn, creating a very high compression, short range detonation. There is nothing wrong with having quad copters with wings, all you need to do is to be able to rotate the back rotors through 90 degrees in order to be able to substantially alter flight characteristics and range.

In a defensive deployment you send out a few hundred networked and feeding information to each other about terrain, targets and counter measures being applied and specifically target those counter measures before penetrating deeper, each time one is destroyed it sends out a cloud of detection obscuring material, which others can hide behind. So in short and medium range applications they do represent a substantial change and test the willingness of a government to kill every bird in proximity to the defended locations and of course where the missing munitions end up. Very effective against the concentrated and exposed forces of invading armies.

So yes, smart drones do present a real security nightmare likely best solved with diplomacy and the proper application of justice rather than just inciting terror with terror.

Re:What's the problem?

[HornWumpus]

I'm willing to bet every non-routine transmission is tracked in close proximity to the WH and jammers are always warmed up.

They likely put the drone on a trajectory then ran like Frenchmen. But perhaps I overestimate the feds electronic warfare capabilities. I doubt it. They spend a lot of money on it and have for decades.

Re:What's the problem?

[wonkey_monkey]

Clearly I was voicing _opinions_!

I disagree that it was clear, and your belligerent tone certainly doesn't help matters (and is the main reason for me replying in the first place).

Attributes like "bullshit" or "nonsense" clearly mark opinions, not statements of fact.

I disagree. Both are synonyms for "false," as in "this is false."

You seem to have some rather serious problem interpreting what people say.

And if I said that was "bullshit" I don't see how anyone could interpret that other than as an absolute denial of your impression. You seem to me to have a problem with other people differing with you - I don't know whether that's actually true or not, but you certainly come across that way.

Re:What's the problem?

[gweihir]

You have a rather absolute view of things. Real life does not work that way.

Re:What's the problem?

[wonkey_monkey]

Then don't present your opinions in such absolute terms!

Quadcopter

[Dan East]

Probably one of those $15 nano quadcopters. You could get lot of bang for your buck flying something so trivial onto the White House lawn, if you were wanting to cause some commotion.

Re:Quadcopter

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That's (among the) downsides of our obsession with risk-minimization, overwhelming force, and technological supremacy. Whether it's using $40k hellfires to destroy rust-eaten technicals in hellholistan or calling out the bomb squad every time somebody tosses a paper airplane over the white house fence, we really need to maintain that economic superiority if we want to survive the sheer attrition.

Re:Quadcopter

[rmdingler]

Probably one of those $15 nano quadcopters. You could get lot of bang for your buck flying something so trivial onto the White House lawn, if you were wanting to cause some commotion.

Certainly.

Unless it was an innocent mistake or a sinister scouting mission against defenses. In either of these cases, commotion would be quite the opposite of the reaction you'd be shooting for.

Re:Quadcopter

[Flavianoep]

Would it not be one of these?

Re:Quadcopter

[saider]

Put some seven segment displays with a countdown clock on it. Don't forget the red, green, and blue wires.

Re:Quadcopter

[Thyamine]

Exactly my thought. Until they show it's a 'serious' drone, this is most likely some college prank or some idiot that thought it would be funny to see what happens. _Maybe_ it's someone trying to see if they can detect/find something like that, but most likely it's just someone who is going to find out it's very expensive to make the Secret Service run around early in the morning.

Re:Quadcopter

[operagost]

Forget SWATting; I'm going to try droning all my favorite public servants.

Re:Quadcopter

[SharpFang]

Unless you want to get into the White House clothed as a fireman.

Re:Quadcopter

[SharpFang]

Nowadays they detonate these in bomb chambers using an "initiating charge" (a small bomb of their own).
There was that guy who just stood for a couple hours in front of White House, with his briefcase.
They checked the briefcase with xray. They found clothes, essential business travel stuff, nothing suspicious. They detonated it anyway.

Re:Quadcopter

[gweihir]

Bullshit. Making B and C weapons is hard, and delivering them is extremely hard. Nobody capable of that would be so pathetically amateurish to have their recon vehicle found. Stop spreading fear.

Re:Quadcopter

[LWATCDR]

Making Chemical weapons requires that knowledge and skills of a 1916 Chemist.
Now if you want to make a Nerve agent you are up to about 1943.

Re:Quadcopter

[gweihir]

Making a _deliverable_ chemical weapon requires far far more. Chlorine gas is not something that is effective in small quantities. And for nerve agents, there is not only the delivery problem, but also the slight issue that you do not want to kill yourself making/storing/handling it and it still requires a significant quantity.

Really, you have lost your rationality. Stop spreading fear!

Re:Quadcopter

[LWATCDR]

I am not afraid of it. Mustard gas was developed during WWI. Nerve gas during WWII.
Sarin has been made by terrorists and used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

I am not afraid of a chemical weapon drone attack because the payload is so low. But why say something that has happened can never happen? Frankly I wonder just how long it will be before some other wack job pulls of a chemical weapons attack. I doubt that it will be any worse than some of the regular bombs in death toll and again I am not going to live in terror waiting for it but to say it is too hard to happen is just wrong.

Re:Quadcopter

[Half-pint HAL]

You wouldn't scout the defences, because that risks giving the game away. You just try it. Either it works, and causes panic; or it gets blown up, reported in the press, and causes panic. Terrorist attacks don't have to hit their target to be successful. The USA is a terrorist's dreamland, because the reaction to attacks is so extreme (like calling the CIA because you see "pressure cooker" in someone's search history).

Re:Quadcopter

[Half-pint HAL]

But why say something that has happened can never happen?

Mustard gas in WWI was delivered in artillery barrages. Multiple large shells delivered over a large area. Mustard gas cannot be delivered in sufficient quantity by Hubsan quadcopter to cause any real harm whatsoever. Claiming the two situations are at all comparable is like suggesting because the first nuclear bombs used hydrogen, we should be afraid of terrorists using dihydrogen monoxide....

Re:Quadcopter

[LWATCDR]

I was talking about the terrorists in japan that made Sarin and used it in two attacks.

Re:Quadcopter

[GNious]

Just thinking, if a decent-size quad-copter can deliver say 100ml of mustard gas, it may be completely harmless in and off itself; when news spread that mustard gas made it anywhere near the white house in any amount....

Re:Quadcopter

[stephanruby]

...if you were wanting to cause some commotion.

Or it could just have been an accident. I know I've lost the control of my drone before. In my case, it was because I had the toggle on for absolute control, so no matter how much I would twist and turn my tablet -- it would keep on going the wrong way.

And please don't tell me you wouldn't take a drone to Washington DC. Taking pictures or videos with a small drone is awesome (assuming you don't lose control of it while doing it). It lets you take shots from unusual perspectives and it differentiates your pictures and videos from the millions of boring pictures and boring videos already taken of the same monuments.

Re:Quadcopter

[HornWumpus]

Only one person died. He would have been fine except he tried to cleanup the liquid Sarin.

Re:Quadcopter

[LWATCDR]

Ahhh... No
From the Wikipedia
"In five coordinated attacks, the perpetrators released sarin on several lines of the Tokyo subway, killing 12 people, severely injuring 50 and causing temporary vision problems for nearly 1,000 others."
And yes that was without an effective dispersal system.
Yes sparky, terrorists have created chemical weapons and used them to kill and injure a lot of people.

Well, what did you expect?

[muecksteiner]

Given the quality of the drone toys you can buy in pretty much any electronics store these days, the only thing that surprises me is that this sort of thing has not happened much earlier. And I don't even mean actual attacks that cause harm: that no-one has flown a regular autonomous cam drone over the White House lawn yet during a press conference, with "Allahu akbar" written on it with a sharpie, in spidery teenage handwriting, is actually fairly surprising. And the message wouldn't even have to be Muslim: something like "Death to Goldman Sachs" would probably be more in the spirit of the Occupy crowd, who probably feel fairly betrayed by Obama. And who would be more likely to do something non-destructive (but noticeable) like this in the first place.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Lumpy]

I want the penis drones from germany to come to the USA and end up in congressional debates...

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[muecksteiner]

Well, "Muslims". Actually I think that some basment-dwelling white male nerd would be far more likely to attempt an overflight of the White House with a drone that has "Allahu akbar" on it, than any local Muslim. "For the lulz", as it were.

But that having ben said, Occupy, Tea Party and real/imaginary Muslims are the most likely candidates for such shenanigans. The local chapter of the Democratic party would probably not do that sort of thing, right?

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[maitas]

The world is changing fast and governments are not responding in a timely manner to the new reality.

Everyone as able to get a cheap drone.

Everyone is able to work as a Taxi without license nor paying taxes.

Everyone is able to work as a Hotel without paying taxes.

Regulations are no longer effective.

We really need a new kind of government.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[bigfoottoo]

I'm half way thru The Future Declassified, Megatrends That Will Undo The World Unless We Take Action. Discusses points in your posting. New kind of government? Not from those clowns in Washington. Yep, we're doomed.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't expect that would work, and I also expect that is why this drone "crashed" over the White House Lawn instead of just flying over it.

It seems extremely likely that the White House has radio frequency jammers that were activated when this thing flew over the lawn, and brought it down when the controls cut out.

Re:Well, what did you expect?

[Kazoo the Clown]

Well, it's a better way to get Media coverage of your protest than camping out in Zucatti park. At least for the first few times until the WH tells the media to lay off covering such incidents. And soon you'll have to go completely autonomous once they set up the radio jammers.

Will this scale?

[WD]

What will folks do when drones get to be insect sized?

Re:Will this scale?

[TheGratefulNet]

carry lots of e-raid spray?

Re:Will this scale?

[ColdWetDog]

I'm sure that the White House has seen the technical manual on how to deal with this problem.

Defense in depth, as it were.

Re:Will this scale?

[SharpFang]

It's unlikely to scale that much anytime soon. Battery size -> radio range; Battery size + motor size -> power -> ability to overcome wind. Mass -> stability -> ability to overcome wind. Add to that lifting power to carry any payload.

Yes, you'll be able to get very small indoor RC quadcopters with several meters of range. But if you want to fly it over GSM while streaming from internal camera, you're not getting it smaller than your palm anytime soon.

Re:Will this scale?

[ArcadeMan]

Handheld Zapper to the rescue!

Re:Will this scale?

[ShaunC]

What will folks do when drones get to be insect sized?

When? The CIA had insect sized drones in the 1970s. They "terminated the program," yeah right; they've probably progressed to fully functional ladybug sized models by now.

Re:Will this scale?

[DigiShaman]

Chainmail burkas!

Jackpot!

[ebonum]

There is only question now. Which federal agency will respond first with: "We can't guarantee your safety without a budget increase of N billion USD."

Re:Jackpot!

[FooAtWFU]

clearly it was a false-flag operation by the Secret Service themselves

Re:Jackpot!

[rmdingler]

There is only question now. Which federal agency will respond first with: "We can't guarantee your safety without a budget increase of N billion USD."

Not just who's first, but how many?

Silver lining? Perhaps some cool anti-UAV tech will trickle down to us civilians.

Re:Jackpot!

[oodaloop]

That wasn't Al Qaeda. And you're an idiot.

Re:Jackpot!

[MTEK]

Someone somewhere is seriously wondering if we can scale an air defense battery to the size of toy firetrucks and SAMs that are the size of bottle rockets.

Or maybe I should stop daydreaming and get back to work.

Re:Jackpot!

[sir-gold]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid...

"During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA. "

Re:Jackpot!

[SharpFang]

So whom did CIA fund and train in Afghanistan in 80s, to fight against Soviets?

Re:Jackpot!

[ArcadeMan]

Someone somewhere is seriously wondering if we can scale an air defense battery to the size of toy firetrucks and SAMs that are the size of bottle rockets.

Yes there is. His name is Lt. Gen. Leland Zevo.

Re:Jackpot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, some of the mujahedin were instrumental in several years later establishing Al Qaeda, but it's idiotic and intellectually dishonest to say that "Al Qaeda is a false flag operation," when the U.S. was always very open about arming the mujahedin (we called 'em "freedom fighters" at teh time!) and never tried to cover up that they were the same people who later were involved in Al Qaeda.

Allegiances change. Everyone knows that.

Re:Jackpot!

[DutchUncle]

That's not "false flag", that's "backfired shortsighted policy".

Re:Jackpot!

[SharpFang]

Yes; it was the US screwing up the endgame and treating their allies instrumentally - discarding them once they were no longer needed, leaving them to their own devices in the wrecked country. Still, it's not a huge leap of faith to imagine the indifference, callousness, shortsightedness were all a cover-up for more sinister motives. They say 'don't ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity', but it doesn't take a very crackpot mind to do that here. We're talking about the most powerful military in the world - it's difficult to accept such a collosal levels of incompetence instead of believing the apparent incompetence was just to hide the real intentions.

See...

[bearded_yak]

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:See...

[operagost]

A new executive Bureau of Drones, Quadcopters, and Very Large Kites will be created to require federal drone licenses for everything that flies. Because interstate commerce.

Re:See...

[ArcadeMan]

[the] Bureau of Drones, Quadcopters, and Very Large Kites

Sounds like something from Monty Python.

Re:See...

[anagama]

No, the reason we can't have nice things is because of overlord over-reaction. Don't be such a submissive putz.

At least it wasn't a 3D printed drone!

[trout007]

That would have been trouble.

Re:At least it wasn't a 3D printed drone!

[ArcadeMan]

Once the feds realize that drones need an atmosphere to fly, we're all doomed.

They also are investigating other things...

[Lumpy]

They also found some very high tech surveillance drones made from some high tech composites made to look like common folded notebook paper. It seems that these high tech spy planes also use a printed circuitry that looks like words on the surface.

The secret service is still researching these severe breaches of security. While they let a crazy guy run across the lawn and enter the white house in broad day light.

Re:They also are investigating other things...

[ArcadeMan]

So what you're saying is that there's more than meets the eyes?

Secret Service Investigating Small Drone On White

[TimSSG]

Personally I would worry more about the large Drones in the White House and on the Grounds than the small ones. Drone: one that lives on the labors of others. Tim S.

Ban...?

[CohibaVancouver]

Between stories like this one, 'peeping Toms' and people flying them into aircraft flight paths you can bet that drones are rapidly moving to the top of the list of things for the governments to ban...

Or to put it another way, this is why we can't have nice things.

Re:Ban...?

[SharpFang]

Personally, I wonder how such a toy drone compares to a bird in aircraft path...

Re:Ban...?

[ArcadeMan]

They won't ban drones but they'll make a law making it illegal to fly drones higher than the height of a standard backyard fence.

Re:Ban...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I wonder how such a toy drone compares to a bird in aircraft path...

Birds tend to have a lot of soft parts, especially on the outside, that help buffer any impact with a craft at the slower speeds typical during takeoff and landing. Also, the hard parts they possess, such as their hollow bones, typically break up when pulled into an engine, which the engines are designed for. Drones on the other hand typically have a lot of hard parts on the outside, and especially things like their batteries, will do a large amount of damage to the blades in a jet engine if ingested. Most problems with birds have occurred when a large flock is hit versus a single bird.

Re:Ban...?

[stub667]

We are way ahead of you: http://www.bbc.com/news/techno...

Battery Fail

[xdor]

Texas Instruments strikes again.

Re:Battery Fail

[PPH]

I was thinking Boeing. But as they were not on fire, you could be correct.

Re:You want to make sure...

[gweihir]

That may be right on the mark....

You are assuming that the goal is to be effective.

[publiclurker]

A small RC plane loaded with the contents of some smoke detectors and a few firecrackers to spread it would undoubtedly cause everyone to freak out for quite some time, while causing basically, no real damage.

It doesn't even need to be a prank.

[publiclurker]

Someone flying around a drone to get some cool snapshots of Washington manages to lose control of it and it goes over the fence. I would imagine a lot of people are not willing to go up to a guard and ask for it back.

Re:It doesn't even need to be a prank.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly - the Mall would be a great place to fly a little quadcopter - lots of open spaces, impressive buildings. I can easily see someone losing their new Christmas present there.

Re:It doesn't even need to be a prank.

[JaredOfEuropa]

I might actually walk up to the guard if I had put a sticker with my name and address on that thing. Running off and hiding behind the sofa when the security guys come calling isn't going to cut it, and might lead to all manner of unpleasantness. Although I can imagine asking the guard "Can I have that back please?" is going to end poorly as well.

Cube of distance, so 47 million pound magnet.

[raymorris]

Let's see, a one-pound degausser will work at about 1 inch away.

We want to do it from at least 360 inches away.

The magnetic field strength falls at roughly the cube of distance, so we need a 46,656,000 pound degausser, approximately.

Your hobby drone can't carry 47 million pounds?

Re:Cube of distance, so 47 million pound magnet.

[Dins]

Your hobby drone can't carry 47 million pounds?

What? Yours can't? Noob...

Re:Cube of distance, so 47 million pound magnet.

[Dins]

Ok, so I missed the "?" at the end of the GP. Attempt at humor...mostly failed. :p

But did they post about it on Twitter?

[linebackn]

But did they post about it on Twitter? It's not a credible threat unless someone posted about it on Twitter. Everybody knows this.

Solved!

[Tablizer]

It was Obama trying to get his golf balls back.

Re:Oh, please... Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly an equal opportunity employer.

Shocked this is newsworthy... I mean,

[King_TJ]

Let's face it. The White House has been FULL of drones for a long time!

oops Huffington Post drone down!

[Virtucon]

It was only Huffington Post trying to actually report on something rather than rehashing news from other sources. Instead they created news.

The article speaks of electronic jamming

[nehumanuscrede]

but then I suppose if you're serious about it, you simply pre-record the flight path, load it up with some explosives and fly it to your target.
No remote signals to jam. Really small target and will not be easy to see ( electronically, think radar ) if flying low enough to the ground.

The article also spoke of active countermeasure systems, but I don't see them shooting down drones with anything that would endanger the public. Far too much PR fallout to deal with should anyone get hurt.

These things are going to get smaller, faster and autonomous very quickly.

One could launch from rooftops in the general area. Calculate time of flight for a pre-programmed flight pattern for each unit to determine time of lift off. Do so for all units and you basically end up with the ability to swarm, with the same time on target, from multiple directions each potentially carrying a lethal payload. For extra fun, throw in a whole bunch of little cheap ones to saturate their targeting systems. ( You can target multiples, but typically only shoot at one or a few at a time )

Same concept we use to take down naval warships. We know their defenses can handle X inbound targets at once. Thus we shoot X + N ( where N is some ridiculous number ) to ensure we overwhelm the defenses and kill the target.

Re:Oh, please... Re:What's the problem?

[kogut]

The TSA has sexual perverts and predators that enjoy molesting and seeing full-body scans of everyone from babies, to young boys and girls, to grannies and grandpas in wheelchairs.

I don't know. I've yet to see a TSA employee that looks like he's enjoying anything. Appears mostly to be a grim, thankless, medium-low wage job without much upside. Arguable efficacy on top of that.

Re:Oh, please... Re:What's the problem?

[Barny]

Those are the ones outside of the special viewing room. They look grim and apathetic because they aren't in that room masturbating.