Slashdot Mirror
Preparing Countermeasures For Terror Attacks Using Drones (remotecontrolproject.org)
An anonymous reader writes: You can add terrorist-controlled drones to the list of dangers we need to be prepared for, says the Oxford Research Group. Its new report contains information about over 200 current and upcoming unmanned aerial, ground and marine systems, and evaluates their capabilities for delivering payloads (e.g. explosive devices), imaging capabilities (e.g. for reconnaissance purposes), and their general capabilities. Even though the report notes that commercial drones have a limited flight time, range of movement, and payload capacity, and that their operators still have to be relatively close to a potential target, the researchers are particularly worried about the possibility of drones being used as remotely controlled explosive devices. They say, "The technology of remote-control warfare is impossible to control; the ultimate defence is to address the root drivers of the threat in the first place."
Stop destabilising foreign nations and victimising populations and there won't be any terrorism (except the false flag variety, which is almost all of it anyway....so stop doing that too....)
Skynet
I'm much more worried about hipsters with drones. I've seen enough of the videos on YouTube where some hipsters who made too much money ruining some formerly-successful software product's UI end up wasting this money on expensive drones equipped with expensive cameras. Then they recklessly fly these drones over cities or other crowded places, with no thought as to what will happen when their shitty, inexperienced drone piloting "skills" cause the drone to fall from the sky unexpectedly. When this happens, they won't care if their drone injured somebody else or damaged somebody else's property. All these hipsters care about is how the lens on their camera shattered by the impact of the drone striking its victims.
"the ultimate defence is to address the root drivers of the threat in the first place." That'd be great. What if they set up repeaters? Or just program a route?
The report notes that drones work for shit in rainy and windy weather. In other words, our best defense is to amp up the global warming until hurricanes are near us at all times.
TIme for some enterprising quadcopter company to get a multimillion dollar contract to design and build "drone interceptors".
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
For those who are trying to hand wave the issue with a broader "well, we shouldn't do things that make people angry *tsk* *tsk*", while addressing the root drivers will help mitigate the numbers of potential incidents, in a world where people have differing opinions, you'll always have a few folks who disagree strongly enough that they may just try to do something like deliver a dangerous payload via unmanned platform. Very least, you're going to have criminal elements that are going to try and exploit this technology for recon or more direct support in committing crimes, maybe even violent support. Therefore, you're going to need this technology to some degree whether through jamming or even outright shooting it out of the sky.
Equip all households with a laser sighted auto tracking high powered sniper rifle that shares a remote drone database and auto targets errant drones.Nothing bad can happen.
Shotguns are still standard issue for most police patrol cars, right? Just fill em up with birdshot instead of buckshot and problem solved. It would be like skeet shooting, but instead of shooting at a clay pigeon it would be like shooting one of those explosive targets that had been catapulted into the sky.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
you know: a sports arena, school, etc.
Im sure for anyone who bought a "drone" 2 weeks ago at christmas, this article is neat. However fearmongering aside Terorrism in 2015 killed only 34 people in the United States, the country with the most drones. heck, in 2014 auto accidents alone killed 34,000 people here...and by comparison terorrism is almost a non-issue when pitted against heart disease, which kills 610,000 per year. Unlike terrorism, which is costly to defend against, most of the cases of heart disease in the united states that claim a life could have been prevented by simple diet and exercise. Hell, in 2013 there were 33,000 firearm related deaths in the US, almost 1000 times the number of terrorism related deaths.
but, you know...terorrism...gotta stop those terrorists.
Good people go to bed earlier.
There is also that small question of what happens when a five, ten or even twenty pound object hovering from even a few dozen feet comes crashing down into a crowded street. Probably not an ideal solution, liabilities and whatnot.
Just make it legal to jam drones. Problem solved.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Clearly, because we have no domestic terrorists. We also have no foreign nations funding terrorism anywhere, like, say Iran. Keep spouting the leftist bullshit your teachers tell you without any critical thought.
So the terrorists are gonna drone us.
So we must drone them with bigger drones!
Oh wait...
You also need some way for the general population to be able to verify that the drone shot down actually was used by real terrorists and that it just wasn't something that was said.
Every action taking against terrorist is an overstep by the government.
The real laws are against murderers. Those laws have checks in place to make sure that the person caught actually is a criminal.
Reporter: "Mister Secretary, what about the possibility of war in the Eighth Dimension?"
Defense Secretary: "What?"
As loosely as the term "terrorist" is thrown around these days, they had better look out for my drone mounted nerf guns
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
News of an experimental drone that could carry a human up to 260lb. is germane. It seems likely it could be altered to be entirely self guided, and such a thing could be filled with explosives, germs, chemicals, paintballs, whatever... and driven in a way that, up to the end, would look like a human being flown somewhere. This could be especially amusing inside a city (which logically would be where such things might go).
As originally designed there is remote control (and btw if that kind of use gets common, how are you going to jam control frequencies without killing innocent passengers?), and the thing is a shade pricey ($100-$200K) for evildoers who are not wealthy.
Still, considering this kind of threat, it seems the only defenses these guys list in the paper that might work could be active defenses (F16s or such maybe).
Someone buying such a thing and altering it could be traced perhaps, so an attacker would need to use a stolen one or otherwise use maybe a synthetic identity, and it'd be considerable work. Thus there probably would not be a lot of these. Once the design and crafting of the controls existed though the same attacker
might be able to do several, not just one.
Dogs are. Dogs are a problem. They bite and they bark and they run after you. So I stomp on them. If you stomp on a dog, it's not a problem anymore. So, whenever I see any dogs, I stomp on them all. Stomp stomp stomp.
Measures -> Counter Measures -> Repeat
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Potassium chloride, aka salt substitute, in solution.
Install a large, 10cc syringe in the nose of a small drone, equipped with a tiny camera so you can guide it, JDAM style. Fly it high into the sky, so it can cut the noisy motor, glide over the target area, then silently dive out of the sun. You can make it out of plastic cardboard.
If you can hit, then the target is finished. No alarming explosions, no panic, no screaming. Silent death from the sky.
If you ask me, I'd say the root threat here is the Oxford Research Group. They're the ones yelling "Phear Dronze"!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Self driving cars eliminate suicide car bombers.
Try countering a swarm of these things.. A relatively small army of 2000 drones armed with explosives or worse would be IMPOSSIBLE to stop.. :(
Jam the GPS frequency ? -> a smart terrorist (if such a thing even exists..) will just make the drones work without GPS.. ex: pre-map the area u want to attack and send in the drones with some cameras or some form of radar system and have them navigate off of landmarks or whatever.. If done this way it wouldn't matter how much jamming u're doing (GPS & control frequencies) anyway since their operation is completely autonomous after they take off.. open-source systems that can be utilized for such an attack is already in the wild. Its just a matter of time before we see an attack like this -> its just to easy!!.. manage the drivers and firmware u say ?? -> LOL.. that would only shut down complete clowns.. Even terrorists have software engineers and have access to whatever hardware they want so if they can fund it -> its gonna happen. and there is simply NO way to stop them.. and plz remember -> 2000 is a ridiculously LOW and easily obtainable number.. the only way to counter such a thing would be EMP and that is way too disruptive in an urban environments. So i guess its GG ?
Do terrorists really think about using mini copters for attacks? Have they done so already? I mean, the notion of sending a suicide martyr to heaven is much more compelling and romantic than plopping bombs on a flying robot.
Let's change the object of the article. ... strongly enough that they may just try to do something like deliver a dangerous payload via passenger vehicle. Very least, you're going to have criminal elements that are going to try and exploit this technology for stakeouts or more direct support in committing crimes, maybe even violent support. Therefore, you're going to need this technology to some degree whether through ramming or even outright shooting it off the road.
The problem isn't criminals use technology because that's always been true. The problem is technology is now a weapon against the state, or occasionally, the people.
As Rwanda discovered in 1994, it's also impossible to control 100,000 machetes. What TFA is arguing, is that aerial drone usage needs to be controlled by the safety culture and CYA policies. This is supported by the historical perspective where jumbo jets were flown into buildings. You put a bomb or massive quantities of fuel into any mobile machine it will cause destruction. The appearance of new new technology doesn't change that so this is fear-mongering: Making mobile machines more powerful and more democratic must make everyone afraid.
Suck it dronefags, you're going to get your silly toys taken away from you and then they ship your gay asses off to Gitmo because you're all terrorist scum LOLOLOL XD XD XD
Really, drones as explosive devices have been around for quite some time--all those military drones, when they fail (and a lot of them do), they fall and destruct, usually in some town and accounted for as 'collateral damage'. Nothing is new here.
Just that it will happen: someone with a small drone will perform the above act, likely in a big town... but against the few folks that want protection. And just say some of those folks are heavily related to those that have power and money. Drones are a disruptive technology--embrace it. Drone defence is more about money than safety.
as result of car accident, industrial accident, fire, disease, crime, earthquake, meteor, and a whole number of unexpected causes which terrorism is not on that list.
mfwright@batnet.com
It is far trickier than the current anti-drone technology implies. Consider the flight path of a drone attacking a public speaker. All hovering and manoeuvring is done at a distance to get the drone in the best position for a final run. A path as close to people as possible and just out of reach, on a direct vector as possible. That final run will be done a maximum forward speed, giving seconds as reaction time. The laser will end up being aimed at spectators heads as well as the drone, so now you have, " we had to permanently blind spectators including children but that's okay because they are nobodies and we had to protect the extra special person, also the four peoples heads we blew off when we exploded the drone doesn't count for shit either". That doesn't even take into account destructive lasers being used in metropolitan areas with lots and lots of very reflective windows.
So something more along the lines of say a chameleon, where a sticky bundle of fibres on the end of a strong line, is fired at the drone and it is reeled in. The unit mounted on fairly high poles around the zone to be temporarily or permanently protected. That way the drone is caught and should it contain explosives it will detonate at a safer range to the public. A compressed air shotgun with rapidly degrading pellets would logically be required for more intensely protected zones. That final attack run is really quick and does not leave much time.
People doing stupid things near airports or other places is much easier to deal with with the drones moving more slowly and spending considerable time in the location as well as the locations usually having very deep safety zones, this allows capture drones or crash drones with sharp stainless steel blades to be used.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Piloting a multirotor or fixed-wing UAV requires years of training. It takes 3 - 4 months just to learn take-off and landing.
Being a pilot of a manned aircraft is not a transferable skill, as a pilot is not sitting in the UAV cabin and is not looking forward.
Let them try to land an UAV hundred meters away on a certain spot. Good luck.
If someone has got enough dedication, discipline, aptitude to become a pilot capable to take off, fly, and land an UAV he/she will not be a terrorist in the first place.
It is a noble idea to address the root causes of terrorism. But can it be done? In the case of the Arab nations, there is a constant cultural pressure caused by being the crossing point of European, Asian and African cultures. Then we have the over- population vs. lack of resources conflict. And on top of that, we see educational levels of a population that are dismal. All of these factors take long periods of time to deal with if they can be dealt with at all. Long term solutions mean nothing when some group goes off of their nut and launches a drone with some sort of weapon attached. Sadly I think, that the only method of controlling such evil is a delivery of a far greater and punitive evil. Usually, if people fear that consequences of an action will surely result in a great likelihood that they will suffer, their behavior will be more moderate.
Seriously, more than a decade ago: http://www.wired.com/2004/04/i...
This wasn't very hard to figure out that when you look at how easy it is to make weapons. The technicalities of terrorism are easy. You can learn most everything you need at the library and always could. You can build bombs, and you can do it without anyone knowing. Its technical work but its nothing compared to some people's hobbies.
The real question is, why doesn't something so easy happen every day? The problem isn't what is easy, the problem is why would anyone do it. The real enemy is the perception that there is a goal that it can accomplish, and you can't fight that away.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The military armed drones, the police armed them, and so are civilians. Drones are a part of the 2nd Amendment and so they are not subject to FAA regulations. They fall under the 2nd and the 9th Amendments.