Slashdot Mirror
White House Drone Incident Exposes Key Security Gap
HughPickens.com writes The Washington Post reports that the intrusion by a recreational drone onto the White House lawn has exposed a security gap at the compound that the Secret Service has spent years studying but has so far been unable to fix. Commercial technology is available that can use a combination of sensitive radar and acoustic trackers to detect small drones, though coming up with an effective way to stop them has been more elusive. "To do something about the problem, you have to find it, you have to track it, you have to identify it and you have to decide what to do with it," says Frederick F. Roggero. "But especially in an urban environment, it would be tough to detect and tough to defeat kinetically without shooting it down and causing collateral damage." Most recreational drones, like the one that crashed Monday, weigh only a few pounds and lack the power to do much harm. Larger models that can carry payloads of up to 30 pounds are available on the market and are expected to become more common. The FAA imposes strict safety regulations on drones flown by government agencies or anyone who operates them for commercial purposes. In contrast, hardly any rules apply to people who fly drones as a hobby, other than FAA guidelines that advise them to keep the aircraft below 400 feet and five miles from an airport. "With the discovery of an unauthorized drone on the White House lawn, the eagle has crash-landed in Washington," says Senator Charles Schumer. "There is no stronger sign that clear FAA guidelines for drones are needed."
Because nobody with bad intentions defies FAA guidelines.
The Secret Serpents need X millions of dollars to provide a 100% effective defense against a $50 toy. Because terrorists!
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
I suspect you could also use an unregulated trebuchet to launch something over a fence, or perhaps an unauthorized weather balloon with a payload to drop something on your neighbor's lawn from altitude. Or a slingshot (although those might be illegal within city limits). The notion of a serious "security gap" is farcical because any reasonably intelligent person could come up with a number of clever ways to outwit fences and exclusion zones.
keep your drone offa my lawn!
I'm sure they can figure out a way to shoot a net with weighted ends that could probably knock one of these out of the air, and not cause any or too much damage if it misses.
Seriously, regulate the entire country because somebody's toy landed on the lawn at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave ?
I think flying drones in Washington, District of Columbia is illegal. Also, I believe that the White House is five miles from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Too bad I can't find the actual law. I hope the Federal Aviation Administration and D.C. police fine the operator of the drone helicopter.
It could easily carry 3 or 4 nail files and we know how dangerous they are.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
TFS says that they don't have a good way to stop a small drone or remote-control plane.
Therefore, we should make it illegal to fly a hobby toy _______. (Fill in the blank with your favorite regulation).
I guess they didn't notice that the bad guys don't CARE whether or not it's illegal to use this toy in the city / at night / near Washington / without permission / whatever. The vexing thing about terrorists is that they don't follow the rules, so hanging the rules doesn't effect them - it only effects us.
Seems like it would be easy(given a military budget anyway) to take one out once you detect it. Lasers should be safe in an urban environment given a tracking system that is robust enough. If you still wanted to use a projectile, you could go with something like dry ice and just send a projectile sized appropriately for the distance you need to shoot. If you miss, it melts before it causes too much collateral damage. Hell, even a 'net gun' or something like it could take out a modern drone.
If the smart folks in the US military industrial complex can't figure this out then I'm more worried about that than any terrorist conspiracy. I'm sure they can, however, they just need a few billion thrown at them first.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
Ve haf not yet a system zu Look in ze Minds of all ze Peasants...
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
It's a toy helicopter. We don't need the FAA to do anything about this - but nannies never let a good "crisis" go to waste...
Do you have ESP?
People throw stuff over the fence of the White House all the time. Detecting the drone (or trebuchet payload) is easy with radar (even if you have to distinguish it from birds) that is available off the shelf today.
The White House is already prohibited airspace. It's already illegal to fly over/near it.
It's also illegal to fly my drone in your backyard, without your permission.
(the altitude where this stops is subject to dispute...)
No new rules are needed, at least because of this.
Trivial new safety precautions are needed at the WH.
Some new FAA rules are needed to clarify *who* is responsible when flying, and what their responsibilities are.
Things like mandatory labeling of the UAV with the owner's name and contact info (and dpr@silkroad.net kind of aliases won't work).
And a clearly carved out "hobby/toy" exemption (which sort of exists already, but is more of a "we won't hassle you if you do this" understanding). 400 ft AGL, visible range all the time, unpopulated area. But you also need to allow folks to fly at the beach or a park.
Most recreational drones, like the one that crashed Monday, weigh only a few pounds and lack the power to do much harm.
So is about every bird in existence that flies (okay, most of them are under a pound, but there are a few larger ones.). What are you going to do? Shoot all birds down that cross the fence around the White House?
"Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
Even if they weigh 500 grams, have a free fall velocity of less than 10 meters per second, and a density well below 25% of water?
Come on... you gotta give me some of the stuff you're smoking. I know you've got it stashed somewhere. :P
A web gun that's the ticket.
. . . with frickin' lasers on their heads.
Not to go all Dr. Evil on the subject, but the Navy *does* have some recently-deployed point defense laser technology designed to shoot down incoming cruise missiles. These tiny drones aren't manned and they're violating what might be the most restricted airspace in the country outside of Groom Lake; there's nothing legally preventing them from being shot down by said laser. That's a far better course than trying to do it ballistically or with something like a Stinger missile, both of which would have a hard time hitting something small and have issues with what happens to the round if it misses (i.e. falls on a civilian).
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
What we need is a swarm of 50 drones programmed to attack anything flying in the white house vicinity. No bullets, just kamikaze ram attacks.
At the very least it will keep us amused.
Car radars/ranging devices OEM prices have dropped to two figures. Maybe sensitive buidings will need to ring themselves with these. Plus software to discriminate against birds and wind derbis.
Look scary drone! No defense possible! Must be banned!
This issue is at the core of a lot of misunderstandings about security in general I see. People expect to be able to solve security problems by creating a framework of rules. Sometimes they're societal rules (aka laws), sometimes they're software like writing a client that can only access a server in a particular way, and assuming no one can access your server in a way not supported by your client (hint: other people can write code, too).
Writing rules won't keep people intent on harm from flying drones at things they want to damage. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to figure out how to keep those drones from doing damage EVEN WHEN they aren't following the rules.
A Phalanx-style interceptor with beanbags would probably work, and be comically appropriate for a threat posed by glorified toy helicopters.
A small recreational drone could carry a deadly biological payload and even include a spray-dispersal of it.
It can also be used merely to scare people. Imagine if you were at a street festival and a drone sprayed a harmless slightly-oily or -sticky substance over everyone below. The local first responders would be tied up for hours until the substance was proven harmless.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It wouldn't take a huge drone to bring in a big enough bomb to do major damage. Heck, you could probably put a rifle on some of the bigger ones.
It'd be really hard to shoot down a mostly-plastic drone coming in at high speed doing evasive maneuvers.
"With the discovery of an unauthorized drone on the White House lawn, the eagle has crash-landed in Washington," says Senator Charles Schumer. "There is no stronger sign that clear FAA guidelines for drones are needed."
Umm, Chuck, quick heads up: "Don't fly over the White House" is already a rule. And you can tell the operator knew, because he or she didn't ask for it back. You are a despicable opportunist.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The word "drone" itself conjures up all sorts of fear in the general public, so of course they're going to milk this situation for all it's worth.
Let's be realistic though... You could probably drive a small radio controlled car up to the front entrance of the White House too, with some payload like a bomb on it -- and that's been possible for long before the toy drones/helicopters were available on the mass market.
There's probably not anything you can or should do about this stuff beyond the systems they've got in place. (A bunch of human beings paid to try to protect the president and the grounds.) New FAA restrictions? That will mean nothing to someone bent on mis-using a drone to cause destruction at the White House!
Mount a claymore to the underside of a drone, fly it in at high speed doing evasive maneuvers, trigger it over the biggest group of people that it sees.
Could be fully autonomous, and it'd be really hard to shoot down when you're worried about where the bullets end up when they fall back down to earth. I suspect a mostly-plastic drone would be hard to see on radar.
Just use a water cannon to shoot the things down. The government already consider them safe to use on crowds. It would be very effective against drones. I can't be the only person who thought of this.
I thought of point defence laser too, but it's got problems. You'd have to be awfully careful about where it was pointing when it fired, otherwise you'd run the risk of blinding civilians in any buildings within line-of-sight.
Realistically you'd probably be better off with a number of lasers mounted around the perimeter so that they shooting more-or-less upwards. Less chance of collateral damage that way.
High-pressure, wide-spread water canons should take out low-flying drones pretty quickly. The only advanced tech bit would be the targeting system.
Cool! Let's turn the White House into a giant fountain. That should spruce up the neighborhood nicely.
Really, the problem isn't the drone. It's the White House. If it wasn't there, then all of this whining and wailing would never see the light of day.
We just need to move the White House away from everyone who could possibly want to hurt it's inhabitants. Given our new found relationship with Cuba, I'm going to suggest we move the complex down to Guantanamo Bay.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If you don't think this was done by the FBI to trigger drone regulations, you're naive.
Unless you're shooting steeply upwards, a miss might blind someone. Heck, if it's bright enough even the backscatter from hitting the drone might cause eye damage.
Seriously, why was the person flying the drone at 3AM?
The only reason I can think of is it was someone who had a motive to embarrass the security.
FTA: "Senator Charles Schumer. "There is no stronger sign that clear FAA guidelines for drones are needed.""
Sounds like they needed these guidelines, so created a situation which would be a strong sign.
PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION
"Never let a crisis go to waste" ==> "Create crises".
A shotgun firing light shot (like #9, commonly used for skeet) can powder a clay target but quickly loses energy.
Where I used to shoot clay targets they had a duck tower, basically a target thrower mounted on tower of 25' or so. You'd shoot the targets from various stations around the tower. The idea was to simulate shooting flying ducks, so everyone shoots up at a steep angle.
Back out front of the clubhouse you would occasionally hear pellets hitting the metal roof of the building and once in a while feel one hit you. It felt like someone had tossed a small pebble in the air, almost not noticeable. The max shot they allowed was #7.5 target loads which is what we used on games with the most distant targets like the duck tower. #9 was better for skeet because of the short ranges and larger shot pattern.
I know people who have been hunting pheasant (relatively more powerful loads, like #4 shot) and been downrange of other hunters and hit by shot loads fired into the air. I forget what the distances where, but they described it as feeling like a light rain.
The most powerful IED that could be transported by a recreational drone would be one carrying a model rocket engine. These contain PETN solid fuel, which is a high explosive. With clever design, this solid fuel engine could be used to make a small explosion.
The problem? This would be at most enough to damage a few windows, and maybe maim somebody at point blank range.
Thinking like yours would lead to the pre-emptive banning of not only hobby RC controlled aircraft, but also hobby rocketry, and a whole shitload of other innocent hobbies-- all because "Whoooo! Something spooky but unlikely COULD happen, so in order to be "PERFECTLY SAFE", All those things have to be preemptively banned! You dont want somebody to be HURT do you!?"
When considering civil policy, one has to weigh in the direct AND indirect costs of a policy change on the standard of living and quality of life of the people who are going to be living under that policy. There is too much collateral damage for policy of this kind to justify it, even if it could maybe, theoretically, save a life.
Other things that can be used to make IEDs? A bag of flour and a box fan with a cigarette lighter.
You REALLY need to distance yourself from the "MUST FEEL SAFE AT ANY COST!" programming that the government has been pushing. Rational evaluation of that kind of policy shows, consistently, that it leads to a less desirable future than allowing the "Oooh, scary!" things to exist.
> they can now stop you from launching/operating in the public location before you fly the drone into the private/secure location.
They didn't even SEE this guy operating it outside the White House fence, and he wasn't hiding. The terrorist would be hiding in his van, controlling the drone from there. Exactly how can they stop what they can't see?
How is it possible I am the first, and only person to think of this obvious solution? What is DARPA for after all anyway?
So the drones "like the one that crashed Monday, weigh only a few pounds and lack the power to do much harm."
That predisposes that you know what the mass limits are for all dangerous things to be carried. Exactly what is the minimum mass of biological agent and aerosolizing device that can expose an area upwind of the target such that natural air currents will cause multiple exposures?
Also what is the upper limit of small drones that you can stop, per second, at the fence with 100% effectiveness.
You can plan to stop larger intrusions but, stopping small drones and their miniature payloads is not the solution. The thing to do is look at where a small drone can get in and what it can carry and put in place automated defences that deal with the result, before people get hurt. Say, automated bulletproof, airtight windows and a guy in a hazmat suit with a spray bottle of bleach.
"Thermite Drone"
You're welcome.
God forbid that some poor kid ever accidentally knock a softball over the White House fence. He'd never escape Gitmo.
A claymore mine is significantly heavy. A small autonomous drone is incapable of achieving the lift necessary to carry one. A drone large enough to carry one would be military grade hardware anyway. Military grade drones can be spotted quite easily.
The scenario you have painted here is a farce.
The typical payload of a domestic RC plane (the usual device to be refit as a domestic drone) is around 2 ounces. The extended battery and the flight control system take up the vast bulk of this. Hobby "Drones" can't carry much more than a ball point pen around.
According to Wikipedia, a Claymore weights 3.5 pounds. The "Mexican Meth Drone" that crashed in a Tijuana parking lot recently was carrying 6 pounds of drugs, and pictures of it don't scream "military grade hardware". Granted they got greedy and overloaded it, but sounds like 3.5 pounds would have been no problem.
Correct, it is the target that's the problem. We should dig underground. Move all of our goverment infrastructure out of sight. Ground all planes and travel by underground trains. Also, all citizens should put their heads in holes in the ground.
What does make sense is a radar/acoustic/lidar "fence", with some sort of point-defence laser/maser/EMP/etc system to disable drones that enter restricted airspace around sensitive areas.
On of the issues will be minimizing collateral damage--debris raining down on people, backscatter from the radiation pulse, missed shots hitting innocent people/equipment, etc.
Nowhere did I call for banning drones, I just pointed out that they're a real issue, not some invented thing.
Personally I think the solution for drones would be a sensor net combined with some kind of EM weapon (laser/maser/EMP/etc.) to shoot down the drone before it gets to the intended target.
Apparently there is a company doing booming business selling drone detection systems to movie stars and other famous people. Gives them enough warning to cover up or go inside.
So anyone with money can get drone detection already. Drone destruction might be another story...though I wouldn't be surprised if that comes eventually too.
The NY Times' article on this said a "government employee" (no name, no affiliation) had come forward to claim the drone and said he was flying it recreationally and that the Secret Service had interviewed him and said that all evidence indicated this was the case.
This seems odd -- who flies a drone recreationally in the vicinity of the White House at 3:30 AM? Or anywhere in DC for that matter. And a government employee? If you were a government employee, wouldn't you generally choose to avoid flying your drone around ten zillion government buildings
Why was he identified as a "government employee"? How likely is that the Secret Service is going to just accept a "oops, my bad" explanation?
Something about this seems off.
The most powerful IED that could be transported by a recreational drone would be one carrying a model rocket engine. These contain PETN solid fuel, which is a high explosive. With clever design, this solid fuel engine could be used to make a small explosion. The problem? This would be at most enough to damage a few windows, and maybe maim somebody at point blank range.
What's "recreational" in this context?
The M18A1Claymore mine weighs under 4lbs and fires roughly seven hundred steel pellets like a shotgun. The proposed Amazon Prime Air drones could carry a bit over 5 lbs, so could easily mount a Claymore.
like a real attacker would care if their drone carrying a bomb would be illigal to fly.. let alone the stolen RDX payload. new laws will just punish the good people and the ciminals will do what they do.
Anyone who has ever watched a master trap or skeet shooter murder clay birds with a shotgun knows the answer to this problem, at least in the shortrun..... the WH grounds are already patrolled by armed secret service agents with radios. Train them to shoot skeet, and direct them to targets over the grounds via their radios.
There has been a lot of talk and posturing about controlling drones but not enough to take action on.
buy a drone at wal-mart, toss it on the White House lawn, then raise a fuss over how it got there and what can be done. NOW you have enough to take action on.
I'm surprised no ones suggested building a dome over the White House yet.
Unrelated to your weird high school post...... --------------This seems like a BAD idea to advertise as an issue they currently have.
For real fun, wait until the drones start coming in stealth models. Imagine how destabilizing it will be when nobody knows, for sure, if there’s an assassin drone, or when the big boys get upset, a nuclear-enabled stealth drone overhead. Imagine how the White House would react if they though a stealthed drone was over DC. Imagine Moscow reacting to even a non-nuclear stealthed drone falling onto Red Square.
Yeah, shooting shotguns at 10-30 degrees above horizontal in the city with no backstop sounds like a *great* idea.
Ah, collateral damage:
Where the miltary and aerospace industries don't care (hey it's in a warzone, in the desert--who cares if it crashes--it should). Hence why cost and capability of these vendors will not work (too expensive, does address these issues).
And where the commerical side has the slightest clue (just sell those Phantoms). Hence why features & convenience overshadow safety and consistency (your results will vary) for a business.
This industry is only going to make it if standards are created--it worked for the Internet (e.g. TCP/IP)...
Who cares about the impact, it's all about fear and PR, look at Syria. It's mainly about PR and money. A few bottle rockets would set of a slew of new laws. Welcome to the new social networking order: physical action need not apply, just an impression & intent.
Instead of an IED, it would be a more serious issue by lawmakers if there was a running video camera on that thing...
Unfortunately, fearmongering law makers are going to have a field day on this.
I've heard those things and they often sound like a pissed off weedeater.
You have no idea what you're talking about. A passing car is louder than a small, well-tuned quad with quality balanced rotors at ground level. 30' in the air? Barely audible. There are noisier ones. I work with a 25-pound octo that sounds completely horrifying, and I know when and where to operate it. But thanks for speaking out of ignorance - it helps to put all of this stuff in perspective.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This assumes you can get a good doppler signature on the rotors at all. I'm not an expert on radar/stealth construction, but I know a fair bit about it. A rotor made of radar-transparent (or absorbent) material would make it rather hard to detect, at least until it was well within range to do damage.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Right after 9/11 they imposed an ADIZ, then changed the name to Special Flight Rules Area. For 10 miles around DCA, there's no flight for almost all but a very special few. Between that and about 20 miles, you can go there if you ask - Mother May I (Follow rules). Of course this only applies to GA aircraft - something not used in a terrorist act anywhere in the world. The aircraft that were - big commercial jets continue like before.
Even so, we're not "at war" anymore. So no excuse. They should eliminate it.