Fearful of the drone-filled skies? Get some protection Those fearful of a future where the skies are darkened by swarms of camera-bearing drones peering over their garden fences and peeking through their bedroom windows should proceed directly to Kickstarter and the "Personal Drone Detection System". Rattling the tin in defence of personal privacy is Domestic Drone …
So some drone-wielding perv can still take pictures of your kids playing
in the swimmingpool or your (topless) sunbathing wife...
Just combine the damn thing with a signal jammer so that every drone
that comes near your house just drops out of the sky...
Plenty of BB gun sentry turrets out there that could be used instead (and even plans to make your own), perfectly legal and could be incorporated into the detection gear.
This detects the drone, arms the turret and the turret gains its target using webcam motion detection and voila, busted drone.
You could even reimburse your costs by selling slightly used drone parts on ebay :)
Depends on how you power the BB gun, compressed air tank is always fun (and available cheaply from paintball supply stores).
This is a 1mm compressed air powered BB gun vs aluminium sheet the thickness of a coke can:
http://youtu.be/ij6Zm0tJ03Y
same weapon vs cd case:
http://youtu.be/KbKVHipGBdQ
That would tear the average joe public drone to pieces.
or the wrong side of everyone trying to use WiFi, and Bluetooth, and mobes in general for that matter. If you think you're out of reach from enforcement, just remember Florida Man's expensive grudge against people driving with phones on:
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-326778A1.html
OK, so the detection range of this is about 50m, but a certain BBC Wildlife unit uses HD cameras capable of filming animals from over a mile away without disturbing them. So I'll use an HD Hero for the general location of my target, and a zoom for those 'intimate' details, and keep well away form the 50m detection zone.
Dear god almighty save us from idiots (like me if I have double posted this)
Firstly, oh look a paedophile has been mentioned, no the offender will not be flying a quad over your garden, most likely he is a family member or close friend. Maybe the offender is on the internet talking to your kids because you don't supervise what your kids are doing online.
But he/she is not flying a drone over your house
To the anti drone idiots. YES, you up at the top of this page
Have you ever encountered a quad copter or any of the variants, they are fucking obvious, if it's within 50 feet you then you can see and hear the big noisy flying thing. I will give you a hint it the thing in the air doesn't have feathers or fur.
If they are using the typical gopro or a mobius camera then they are making a hell of a lot of noise right next to you because it needs to be close due to the cameras being a bit crap for that soet of thing
Anybody else snooping is a professional and 50 metre range is no use to you, but then the camera isn't likely to be attached to a quad (between 5 & 20 minute flight time for what ordinary enthusiasts can afford.) It's probably poking out of their bedroom window or shubbery.
Signal jammer, what are you going to do jam 5.8GHz, 2.4GHz, 1.2GHz 900MHz (appx) and 433MHz ? Well in Europe that would be illegal, and you would have neighbours/police paying you a visit.
In the states your neighbour would shoot you for interrupting his WiFi, baby monitor, kids radio controlled whatever (car, plane, quad), video sender, home security system, remote controls.
Get the idea? (probably not)
For those who didn't read the product details.
You must configure those RF sources that are deemed to be OK, people have enough trouble setting a new password on their WiFi router and as for moving to a non interfering channel so will this work?
There's so many things wrong with this crap it's not funny meanwhile it's FUD all the way.
Summary of the product:
It's crap designed to take money off people and give almost nothing back.
Considering the number of cabbages that I get telling me that I can't fly multi rotors on the private land that they are in the process of trespassing upon.
It's shite like that which gets people like me threatened (and in some cases assaulted) because too many members of the public have a common ancestor than the rest of us mammals
Hover your multirotor over my private property and take pictures of me and mine and I promise you sir, you won't be getting back. If you choose to then come onto my property uninvited and demand it back without a warrant then expect that I will treat you as a hostile trespasser on my property.
Inside the bounds of my own fence, and inside my own home I absolutely have a reasonable expectation of privacy, one I will defend against all comers to the very last of my ability.
I should also point out that my government absolutely has been thinking about this, and does give fucks about privacy.
Where UAVs are used for commercial aims, their use would be covered by the Personal Information Protection Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and subject to the same requirements as with any other data collection practice. It is a common misconception that a company does not require permission to take an individual’s photograph in a public place.87 The privacy protections in PIPEDA are there to ensure that people know when their image is being captured for commercial reasons – whether by photograph or video - and what it will be used for. PIPEDA requires consent as a general rule, subject to only limited and specific exceptions. Collection and use of personal information can only be for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances and there should be a consideration for employing a less privacy-invasive means of obtaining the information.
If cameras on drones are governed by the same rules as surveillance cameras under PIPEDA, then flying your drone over my property in order to surveil me in my own yard absolutely is an invasion of my privacy. Just as I would be well within my rights to remove a surveillance camera discovered on my property (and surrender it to the legal authorities of my jurisdiction, should I be asked to return it), so to would I be within my rights to remove a flying camera that was surveilling me on my own property.
Now, you want to sit outside my property and point a camera at me? Then I am entirely within my rights to whip out some triangulation gear, track down who is controlling that drone and sue you for invasion of privacy. And I will win. Just like you cannot place a surveillance camera on your own building and point it at my back yard or bedroom, you cannot hover a drone just outside the property line and surveil me.
Your drone just flying by and accidentally waves onto my property as it's doing wide area shots or taking pictures of crowds? That's not an invasion of privacy and I likely have no legal recourse to seize the drone, though I do have a potential case for trespassing, if I can track down who is flying it.
Also of note: you can't go taking pictures of those crowds unless you post notice that you are going to. That's part of privacy law here. Even if you have a surveillance camera on your own property, you need to post notices.
Thus, if you have a drone looking at me for any reason, in any place and have not posted adequate notice such that I may find out who it is that is operating that drone, you are in violation of the law. At least if you use the drone for anything even remotely commercial. Recreational use is a lot more iffy...but I'd be entirely pleased to be the first bloke to take that one to the Supreme court.
Short version: you don't get to point a camera at me, even in a public place, unless you post a warning about it. You don't get to point a camera onto my property without asking, and if you place a camera on my property you're violating criminal - not just civil - law, and I have the right to remove (but not destroy) the camera, and to only surrender it to the authorities.
So no, I don't get to shoot your drone down. But cross my property line with it, I do get to net the damned thing and only give it back when the cops are at your side. At which point you will have told me who you are, and I will press charges.
Thanks,
--A citizen with a reasonable expectation of privacy in his own home and behind his own fence.
Seriously? Seems to me that if one of these Drones comes within 50ft. of me...then I probably would, at the very least hear it, and most likely also see it.
Sounds like just one more P.T. Barnum moment to me. The complete dumbing-down of society continues.
Just have your drone crash into the offending drone, and down they both go. Yeah, it's expensive, but think of the children playing in the backyard pool, then think about the perv controlling the offending drone. Now if the PDDS came with hellfire missiles that would lock onto the drone controller, and the pedo holding it - that might be worth it. Icon to show result of hellfire missiles.
GE's Minigun is for pussies, Goalkeeper is the real deal for swatting undesirables from your personal airspace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS
The GAU-8/A Avenger 30 mm Gatling gun, as used by the A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, was selected for the system. The 30 mm round has a greater mass than the M61 Vulcan used in the Phalanx CIWS, so it provides much greater destructive power with similar muzzle velocity and range.
The system's reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile such as the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn from automatic detection to kill is reported to be 5.5 seconds with the firing synchronized to start the engagement at a range of 1,500 m and ending with a kill at 300 m.
Them Cloggies know the score when it comes to lead curtains.
Someone needed to make some money with a proof-of-concept product without offending anyone.
People needing *real* protection will want things like insect-sized accuracy, for insect-sized drones, lasers to disable cameras, high-powered radio jamming, processing of detected signals against a database of commercial drone products, the ability to remotely control any drones that allow it, and various other additional features, not to mention something that doesn't broadcast its own operation over easily available channels.
And *obviously* you can't even BEGIN to approach such a thing from the poor side of the law. You should at least be a corporation, and preferably some sort of military/civilian collaboration. Otherwise, if you can't catch it with a butterfly net, you should probably leave it alone.
This is going to get amusing in a bit - if you like dystopian science fiction.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
