And there's nothing to say he didn't go buy another drone of the same model, fly another similar flight, but without the low altitude hovering, and purposely crash it in order to make this video. Well, there may be some actual evidence of that in the video, but it's been made private now so I haven't seen it.
You clearly have no idea how marijuana works. Go smoke a joint, then get back to me. If it makes you lazy, smoke a different strain the next night; lather, rinse, repeat, until you find the strain that works for you. There are hundreds, it may take some time.
The story isn't the RC aircraft, it's the new phenomenon of idiots who own and use RC aircraft without exercising the common courtesy generally exercised by the RC community since the devices have existed.
If you can return it, that means you've identified the pilot. In that case, deal with them face-to-face while the drone is still in flight. If they crash it, they can't claim you broke it, can they? In other words, no, don't return it; if the pilot comes to claim it, tell them you have no way of knowing it's actually theirs. True story, even, as anyone could have seen it flying overhead and be able to identify it visually and, well they can't prove the controller they're holding in their hand actually controls the destroyed drone, can they? Tell them they can talk to the local PD about recovering it after you turn it in.
Not really, as you can typically see whether my camera is on or not (most P&S cameras have an automatic lens cap) or if the lens cap is present (anyone who gives a fig about their camera makes damn sure the lens cap is on it while not actively shooting). On top of that, it's easy to tell what I'm actively shooting and if, for some reason, you can't figure that out, you can always ask me. Unless you can see radio waves and somehow pick out which of the tens of thousands of waves hitting the drone are the ones coming from said drone's control device, you have no way of tracing those waves back to the control device (which may or may not be in the same location as the pilot) and, therefore, no way to track down the pilot to ask them anything, let alone if (or what) they're filming or photographing.
And if I've forgotten to put my lens cap back on after shooting, I thank the person who raises their concerns to me for reminding me to protect my lens when not in use, then put the cap back on.
Not the AC this AC replied to, but... Solving the problem of people flying drones over other peoples' property without permission does not need to be solved in anyone's lifetime, though sooner would be better (and it's often easy to get permission for a flyover as long as you're not doing anything creepy with it). Slving the problem of someone flying a drone over my property, on the other hand, does need to be solved in my lifetime; in fact, in a much shorter period of time: it needs to be solved while the drone is flying over my property.
To put that another way: Someone flying their drone over your property and filming you without permission is, apparently, a problem we both agree does not need to be solved in my lifetime. However, when that drone flies over my property without permission, potentially filming me, well... waiting for my grandkids to solve the problem (after being born and growing up) doesn't really do any good, does it?
Better the people being incosiderate with their toys be given a problem of their own: their toys being destroyed bythe people whose lives they violate with them. And that's an easy problem to solve: get permission to use your toys on my property.
Why? Either the correctly named file is in the correct location on the disk and has a correct checksum and identifier that matches the system it has been plugged into, or it doesn't. If the user has gone through the trouble of finding the correct file, naming it correctly, putting it in the correct location on the USB disk, plugging the USB disk into the correct port, shutting down, flipping the firmware write switch, and booting back up, it's pretty clear that they want to upgrade their firmware. Do that without further input, then display a message letting the user know they need to shut down and flip the switch again before booting into their OS. Adding additional attack vectors doesn't seem like such a hot idea.
You must have missed the point that flash chips, used in this application, can never be secure. It is precisely due to the use of flash chips that this exploit is even possible; can't overwrite a ROM. At the very least, there needs to be a physical switch that enables writing, and the system should refuse to boot into anything but the firmware update screen if that switch is in the "write" position. Better yet, have the switch only function to set the value of a gate and latch that value so that toggling the switch with the system powered up does nothing. The gate's only input would be the switch and it would only read on power-up. Then, the user doesn't even have the option of accidentally enabling write mode once the system is booted, which would protect against exploits such as this, even in cases where the user flips the switch after booting.
Doesn't protect against someone with physical access, but it does change the game to require the attacker, and not just the attacking device, to have physical access or, at the very least, convince the user that there is a firmware update so they're likely to boot into write mode. Of course, write mode could disable all ports except for one USB port and only support USB disk devices on that port.
That wouldn't be perfectly secure, of course, but it'd sure be more effort than mailing your victim a new ROM chip in official looking packaging with instructions printed on forged letterhead. Yes, that's right, even the physical socketed chip solution isn't secure if you think outside the box.
We are in agreement here, as is the law, as trespass laws do apply accordingly; in most jurisdictions, passing through is not trespass. On the other hand, I have a nice large open space to fly in, if only I had a drone.
We are in agreement on this point. Trespass laws should apply accordingly and, in most jurisdictions, passing through is not trespass. That said, I have a nice wide open space to fly in; if only I had a drone to fly.
So, AT&T long distance service hasn't been a telecommunications service but, instead, an information service since the 1980's because computers? Go ahead, AT&T, back this argument, retroactively lose common carrier status for your long distance network from the moment you computerized it, and for your POTS network from the moment you merged with the mini-Bells. I wonder how many of the felonies that were committed while utilizing your network are still within their statute of limitations...
Of course he could have. And by the time he wrote all of that out and held it up, the perv with the drone has gotten his jollies off over the two young girls he was watching several times already. Better to just blast it out of the sky under the circumstances.
My trick is that I've learned to simply not give a fuck. Seriously, that's all there is go it. And I mean genuinely just don't care about anything but the moment you're in. When I'm working, all I care about, all I pay attention to, is my work. When I'm dealing with finances, they're the only thing in the world. When I play, nothing else exists. You'd think my wife would get annoyed with that, but, well... The same values to her and that more than makes up for the other times.
Of course, I'm not ALWAYS so focused; most of the time I spread my attention like everyone else, and I can be startled my focused state, but having the ability to just let every other concern in the world fall away has proven invaluable. I find that my work (application development) gets done better and faster, my finances are handled without error, and I even do better at games and useless stuff when I'm in that state.
Nice choice of Unicode; looks like a 2-character ASCII comic of you trying to smile but ending up with a blank face in the first frame (character) and throwing your hands up in frustration in the second.
Indeed, but let's be realistic, these craft can't reach that altitude. If the "pilot" isn't being a douche and hanging around your property or buzzing your head, don't be a douche and shoot down his drone. Let him pass over and expect to see him again on his return pass. Of course, if he's making laps around your property or repeatedly passing over, take whatever action is necessary to stop him, starting with trying to locate him and asking him to stop and escalating from there as necessary. But if that drone is being a nuisance by hovering over your property or getting dangerously close to you, by all means, take it out.
You wouldn't be too happy if your neighbors installed cell phone jammers to protect themselves from phones' dangerous EM radiation, would you?
I wouldn't be happy because my phone wouldn't work near the jammers, but I'd be delighted in knowing how jammers actually work. I'd probably knock on their door, greet them with a smile, shake their hands, maybe even brink a cake, pan of brownies, plate of cookies, or fruit basket, and say something along the lines of "Way to amplify the problem you're trying to prevent, dumbasses."
Slashdot Mirror
And there's nothing to say he didn't go buy another drone of the same model, fly another similar flight, but without the low altitude hovering, and purposely crash it in order to make this video. Well, there may be some actual evidence of that in the video, but it's been made private now so I haven't seen it.
Oh, right. Because you take photos on the sidewalk too
Or, because you can ask the person to stop. The drone? Not so much. It's not like drones are tethered to their pilots for easy identification.
You clearly have no idea how marijuana works. Go smoke a joint, then get back to me. If it makes you lazy, smoke a different strain the next night; lather, rinse, repeat, until you find the strain that works for you. There are hundreds, it may take some time.
Welcome to Slashdot. God, I love this place.
The story isn't the RC aircraft, it's the new phenomenon of idiots who own and use RC aircraft without exercising the common courtesy generally exercised by the RC community since the devices have existed.
Plus, we're talking about a kite. Trace the string back to the pilot and ask them to stop, no shooting required. A drone has no string.
And I don't get why anyone would argue with that. This isn't complicated stuff, but I think it's clear who the drone owners are in this crowd.
If you can return it, that means you've identified the pilot. In that case, deal with them face-to-face while the drone is still in flight. If they crash it, they can't claim you broke it, can they? In other words, no, don't return it; if the pilot comes to claim it, tell them you have no way of knowing it's actually theirs. True story, even, as anyone could have seen it flying overhead and be able to identify it visually and, well they can't prove the controller they're holding in their hand actually controls the destroyed drone, can they? Tell them they can talk to the local PD about recovering it after you turn it in.
its much the same thing really.
Not really, as you can typically see whether my camera is on or not (most P&S cameras have an automatic lens cap) or if the lens cap is present (anyone who gives a fig about their camera makes damn sure the lens cap is on it while not actively shooting). On top of that, it's easy to tell what I'm actively shooting and if, for some reason, you can't figure that out, you can always ask me. Unless you can see radio waves and somehow pick out which of the tens of thousands of waves hitting the drone are the ones coming from said drone's control device, you have no way of tracing those waves back to the control device (which may or may not be in the same location as the pilot) and, therefore, no way to track down the pilot to ask them anything, let alone if (or what) they're filming or photographing.
And if I've forgotten to put my lens cap back on after shooting, I thank the person who raises their concerns to me for reminding me to protect my lens when not in use, then put the cap back on.
Not the AC this AC replied to, but... Solving the problem of people flying drones over other peoples' property without permission does not need to be solved in anyone's lifetime, though sooner would be better (and it's often easy to get permission for a flyover as long as you're not doing anything creepy with it). Slving the problem of someone flying a drone over my property, on the other hand, does need to be solved in my lifetime; in fact, in a much shorter period of time: it needs to be solved while the drone is flying over my property.
To put that another way: Someone flying their drone over your property and filming you without permission is, apparently, a problem we both agree does not need to be solved in my lifetime. However, when that drone flies over my property without permission, potentially filming me, well... waiting for my grandkids to solve the problem (after being born and growing up) doesn't really do any good, does it?
Better the people being incosiderate with their toys be given a problem of their own: their toys being destroyed bythe people whose lives they violate with them. And that's an easy problem to solve: get permission to use your toys on my property.
Why? Either the correctly named file is in the correct location on the disk and has a correct checksum and identifier that matches the system it has been plugged into, or it doesn't. If the user has gone through the trouble of finding the correct file, naming it correctly, putting it in the correct location on the USB disk, plugging the USB disk into the correct port, shutting down, flipping the firmware write switch, and booting back up, it's pretty clear that they want to upgrade their firmware. Do that without further input, then display a message letting the user know they need to shut down and flip the switch again before booting into their OS. Adding additional attack vectors doesn't seem like such a hot idea.
You must have missed the point that flash chips, used in this application, can never be secure. It is precisely due to the use of flash chips that this exploit is even possible; can't overwrite a ROM. At the very least, there needs to be a physical switch that enables writing, and the system should refuse to boot into anything but the firmware update screen if that switch is in the "write" position. Better yet, have the switch only function to set the value of a gate and latch that value so that toggling the switch with the system powered up does nothing. The gate's only input would be the switch and it would only read on power-up. Then, the user doesn't even have the option of accidentally enabling write mode once the system is booted, which would protect against exploits such as this, even in cases where the user flips the switch after booting.
Doesn't protect against someone with physical access, but it does change the game to require the attacker, and not just the attacking device, to have physical access or, at the very least, convince the user that there is a firmware update so they're likely to boot into write mode. Of course, write mode could disable all ports except for one USB port and only support USB disk devices on that port.
That wouldn't be perfectly secure, of course, but it'd sure be more effort than mailing your victim a new ROM chip in official looking packaging with instructions printed on forged letterhead. Yes, that's right, even the physical socketed chip solution isn't secure if you think outside the box.
We are in agreement here, as is the law, as trespass laws do apply accordingly; in most jurisdictions, passing through is not trespass. On the other hand, I have a nice large open space to fly in, if only I had a drone.
We are in agreement on this point. Trespass laws should apply accordingly and, in most jurisdictions, passing through is not trespass. That said, I have a nice wide open space to fly in; if only I had a drone to fly.
So, AT&T long distance service hasn't been a telecommunications service but, instead, an information service since the 1980's because computers? Go ahead, AT&T, back this argument, retroactively lose common carrier status for your long distance network from the moment you computerized it, and for your POTS network from the moment you merged with the mini-Bells. I wonder how many of the felonies that were committed while utilizing your network are still within their statute of limitations...
Of course he could have. And by the time he wrote all of that out and held it up, the perv with the drone has gotten his jollies off over the two young girls he was watching several times already. Better to just blast it out of the sky under the circumstances.
Altitude dependent. Bigot.
Context. Photography. Shoot. Got it?
And this is why I don't post from my phone. "the same values to her" should be "the same applies to her". I love autocorrect.
My trick is that I've learned to simply not give a fuck. Seriously, that's all there is go it. And I mean genuinely just don't care about anything but the moment you're in. When I'm working, all I care about, all I pay attention to, is my work. When I'm dealing with finances, they're the only thing in the world. When I play, nothing else exists. You'd think my wife would get annoyed with that, but, well... The same values to her and that more than makes up for the other times.
Of course, I'm not ALWAYS so focused; most of the time I spread my attention like everyone else, and I can be startled my focused state, but having the ability to just let every other concern in the world fall away has proven invaluable. I find that my work (application development) gets done better and faster, my finances are handled without error, and I even do better at games and useless stuff when I'm in that state.
Recapture? I live there, friend.
That's one damn huge slingshot. Where do I get one?
Nice choice of Unicode; looks like a 2-character ASCII comic of you trying to smile but ending up with a blank face in the first frame (character) and throwing your hands up in frustration in the second.
Indeed, but let's be realistic, these craft can't reach that altitude. If the "pilot" isn't being a douche and hanging around your property or buzzing your head, don't be a douche and shoot down his drone. Let him pass over and expect to see him again on his return pass. Of course, if he's making laps around your property or repeatedly passing over, take whatever action is necessary to stop him, starting with trying to locate him and asking him to stop and escalating from there as necessary. But if that drone is being a nuisance by hovering over your property or getting dangerously close to you, by all means, take it out.
You wouldn't be too happy if your neighbors installed cell phone jammers to protect themselves from phones' dangerous EM radiation, would you?
I wouldn't be happy because my phone wouldn't work near the jammers, but I'd be delighted in knowing how jammers actually work. I'd probably knock on their door, greet them with a smile, shake their hands, maybe even brink a cake, pan of brownies, plate of cookies, or fruit basket, and say something along the lines of "Way to amplify the problem you're trying to prevent, dumbasses."