Method to Bring Down Malicious Drones is Effective, but Illegal

[Zarathustra[H]]

What once seemed like science fiction, people either accidentally doing harm with unmanned aerial drones at airports, or intentionally causing harm through terrorism, is not quite as far fetched as it once was. The FAA receives more than 100 reports every month of drones flying too close to aircraft, and ISIS has reportedly already been using small cheap drones for surveillance in combat areas.

The good news is that there is a solution in the works for this problem. Wired has an in-depth article up about a new system with the capabilities to effectively identify, track and take down malicious drones by interrupting communication signals. The bad news? Interrupting the communications signals is currently illegal per FCC regulations put into place long before current drone tech was a reality.

While I hope they are able to get the attention of congress and regulators to carve out a narrow exception in FCC regulations on the subject, it seems to me that one major weakness of this system is that it would likely be unable to deal with autonomous drones. Given the cool things that are being done by hobbyists in this area, consumer ownership of real autonomous flying drone technologies can't be that far from reality, and that will require a different solution.

Thanks to forum user dethklokworkorange for the link.

"Up in a skybox, Lamm and Romero, cofounders of Black Sage Technologies, monitored the drone-tracking equipment they’ve spent the past few years developing. Almost immediately after the drone lifted off, Lamm and Romero’s radar detected it. Their AI-powered software identified it as a drone (and not, say, a bird), and their tripod-mounted cameras tracked it as it made its way over the crowd. As they heard the ominous buzzing overhead and watched the college kids pretend to die, Romero and Lamm allowed themselves a small measure of satisfaction—Black Sage’s tracking system worked, and in the event of an actual attack it could give authorities a few crucial extra minutes to mobilize."

 

[Gigus Fire]

Because jamming has unintended consequences. It's very difficult to selectively jam specific frequencies. It's a lot easier to produce a lot of rf noise which jams many frequencies, but that would interfere with (for example) emergency communication and airplane communication.
The idea that there are malicious drones is kind of silly. There are people with malicious intent that use drones.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

The idea that there are malicious drones is kind of silly. There are people with malicious intent that use drones.

Well, yeah, but I think that is splitting hairs a little bit. At least today no drone has free will, so they can't inherently be malicious in and of themselves. One is just short hand for the other.

 

[sfsuphysics]

I don't think I agree with the idea that "jamming signals" is an "outdated rule" that the FCC put in place.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I don't think I agree with the idea that "jamming signals" is an "outdated rule" that the FCC put in place.

By outdated, I mean they were put into place at a time before drones and other remote controlled devices might need to be stopped, maybe I should clarify that.

I'm not arguing that jamming is necessarily a modern great thing, just that these regulations were put in place during a period of time when the current technology was not even thought about as a potential.

I'm all for them looking into carving out VERY narrow emergency exceptions to their interference rules, but - as has been mentioned in this thread - they have to tread very carefully, as there can be many unintended consequences.

Thanks for the feedback

 

[Gigus Fire]

By outdated, I mean they were put into place at a time before drones and other remote controlled devices might need to be stopped, maybe I should clarify that.

I'm not arguing that jamming is necessarily a modern great thing, just that these regulations were put in place during a period of time when the current technology was not even thought about as a potential.

I'm all for them looking into carving out VERY narrow emergency exceptions to their interference rules, but - as has been mentioned in this thread - they have to tread very carefully, as there can be many unintended consequences.

Thanks for the feedback

I'm fairly sure the rules against jamming goes back way before drones even existed. They existed in the time when i got my ham license (in the 90s), and those rules didn't recently change.

 

[sfsuphysics]

By outdated, I mean they were put into place at a time before drones and other remote controlled devices might need to be stopped, maybe I should clarify that.

I'm not arguing that jamming is necessarily a modern great thing, just that these regulations were put in place during a period of time when the current technology was not even thought about as a potential.

I'm all for them looking into carving out VERY narrow emergency exceptions to their interference rules, but - as has been mentioned in this thread - they have to tread very carefully, as there can be many unintended consequences.

Thanks for the feedback

No thank you for your feedback, this clarification of your statement is one I can agree with.

That said, and I hate to say this, but any sort of jamming should be left to "police" type agencies or those granted power to do so. Not just any private business that decides they want to charge a $99 access fee to their hotel's wifi instead of letting someone tether to help out a conference or something.

 

[Gigus Fire]

No thank you for your feedback, this clarification of your statement is one I can agree with.

That said, and I hate to say this, but any sort of jamming should be left to "police" type agencies or those granted power to do so. Not just any private business that decides they want to charge a $99 access fee to their hotel's wifi instead of letting someone tether to help out a conference or something.

Fairly sure that's illegal and they can get fined by the FCC for doing that.
Passive jamming is legal. You can "tin foil" a room to prevent signals from entering or exiting. You just can't actively jam.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

No thank you for your feedback, this clarification of your statement is one I can agree with.

That said, and I hate to say this, but any sort of jamming should be left to "police" type agencies or those granted power to do so. Not just any private business that decides they want to charge a $99 access fee to their hotel's wifi instead of letting someone tether to help out a conference or something.

Couldn't agree more. It looked to me like the tech this company is developing is marketed towards official security/police type agencies. Here is their website. It is rather low on details, though.

 

[The_Heretic]

You could also run up against the FAA regulation about downing a drone. Although initially written to the idea of shooting one down, the actual concern is around any potential harm the falling or damaged drone could pose.

"According to the FAA “regardless of the situation, shooting at any aircraft — including unmanned aircraft — poses a significant safety hazard. An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air. ”

 

[Dead Parrot]

Once the bad guys know that the normal drone control frequencies can be jammed, they will modify their drones to use alternative frequencies. If they are planning on killing large numbers of people, a charge for inappropriate frequency use isn't much of a deterrent. Smarter bad guys will use a drone with an internal only inertial guidance system. If your target is a large open air football stadium, missing the middle of the 50 yard line by 20 or 30 yards won't matter much.

An intercept drone with a net or a well trained eagle is probably a better counter measure.

 

[DocSavage]

Fairly sure that's illegal and they can get fined by the FCC for doing that.
Passive jamming is legal. You can "tin foil" a room to prevent signals from entering or exiting. You just can't actively jam.

Has the government stopped using Stingray cell interception systems that are also in violation of the FCC?

 

[Gigus Fire]

Once the bad guys know that the normal drone control frequencies can be jammed, they will modify their drones to use alternative frequencies. If they are planning on killing large numbers of people, a charge for inappropriate frequency use isn't much of a deterrent. Smarter bad guys will use a drone with an internal only inertial guidance system. If your target is a large open air football stadium, missing the middle of the 50 yard line by 20 or 30 yards won't matter much.

An intercept drone with a net or a well trained eagle is probably a better counter measure.

I'm 99% sure everything is operating in unlicensed frequencies (http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/free.htm). If someone had the will or malicious intent (terrorist or whatnot) they could just ignore the law and make a custom transceiver which would work on a different frequency. Jamming would get a whole lot harder.
Then again you could just go the microwave cannon and try and fry the electronics, but that's a different story.

 

[Gigus Fire]

Has the government stopped using Stingray cell interception systems that are also in violation of the FCC?

Fairly sure law enforcement has been pretty hush on this since it violates the 4th amendment. But the idea of stingray isn't jamming. All cellular communication will work as intended (nobody knows about it), it's just that your phone will connect to a fake cell tower that listens to everything and forwards the data to a real tower. A man in the middle attack is hard to stop since you never know about it.
Besides the 4th amendment, i don't think operating a cell phone tower that doesn't interfere is against the law. You can buy a micro repeater for your own use. For example, tmobile sells a micro tower that you can set up in your home to allow cell phone coverage (that forwards the data through your home internet) for places that don't have service. I've never heard of this being illegal.

 

[DocSavage]

Fairly sure law enforcement has been pretty hush on this since it violates the 4th amendment. But the idea of stingray isn't jamming. All cellular communication will work as intended (nobody knows about it), it's just that your phone will connect to a fake cell tower that listens to everything and forwards the data to a real tower. A man in the middle attack is hard to stop since you never know about it.
Besides the 4th amendment, i don't think operating a cell phone tower that doesn't interfere is against the law. You can buy a micro repeater for your own use. For example, tmobile sells a micro tower that you can set up in your home to allow cell phone coverage (that forwards the data through your home internet) for places that don't have service. I've never heard of this being illegal.

The government lacks the licenses for the private spectrums their device operates on.

Per wikipedia: "In 2016, Professor Laura Moy of the Georgetown University Law Center filed a formal complaint to the FCC regarding the use of the devices by law enforcement agencies, taking the position that because the devices mimic the properties of cell phone towers, the agencies operating them are in violation of FCC regulation, as they lack the appropriate spectrum licenses.[53]"

 

[Gigus Fire]

The government lacks the licenses for the private spectrums their device operates on.

Per wikipedia: "In 2016, Professor Laura Moy of the Georgetown University Law Center filed a formal complaint to the FCC regarding the use of the devices by law enforcement agencies, taking the position that because the devices mimic the properties of cell phone towers, the agencies operating them are in violation of FCC regulation, as they lack the appropriate spectrum licenses.[53]"

People at defcon hacked one of those pico towers that the carriers sells and sniffed all the data coming from it and put it on a drone.
Something like this: https://www.wired.com/2010/07/intercepting-cell-phone-calls/
Since i have no information on how stingray works or what they used (because it's pretty hush, police departments don't want to get sued), it's hard to tell if this wasn't a device which was licensed to operate on those frequencies. If you don't mess with that part and decrypt the data off of the end of it, then you're probably violating something, but nothing to do with the FCC.
Sorry, this link is the drone project: http://www.geek.com/geek-pick/wasp-...drone-that-cracks-wi-fi-gsm-netwokrs-1407741/

 

[Advil]

Couldn't you just use a focused microwave beam against just about any consumer drone? Simple, effective. It's fried. Done.

 

[dethklokworkorange]

I thought the eagle method was intriguing. I really question how well they'd perform with the wall of noise in a stadium full of screaming fans. Maybe they need robot eagles.... And although the FAA doesn't like private citizens shooting down planes, a law enforcement agency who plays the terrorism card can probably get the leeway to do whatever they need to.

 

[T_A]

Meet - Drone Dome by Refael :

"The new system, designed to detect, track, and neutralize drones"

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/c...ome-drone-detection-and-neutralization-system

 

[velusip]

For the most part, all these reports of drones putting people at risk (near airports or crowds) are due to ignorant people, not terrorists. Wired amps it up like a fucking Tom Clancy novel. An I'm willing to bet that 90% of the reports are just people being irrationally annoyed and dramatic.

The problem could be greatly reduced by something as simple as mandatory information bundled with the product, and mandatory postings on the premises of RC aircraft retailers which warn people what kind of federal law they are dealing with by flying irresponsibly. I have been into RC my whole life, and I don't fly without my SFOC and annual insurance for accidental damage. It was made very clear to me at a young age in the hobby shops and I gladly paid the $50 annually to be covered.

Of course, you can't stop security from profiting, so having a tiered response system is fine. Basic spectrum analysis should find a transmitter in an instant around a static installation, so send the authorities to say hi. Jamming and signal mimicry for serious offenses, but that can't stop a proper drone with a fast parallax LIDAR or acceleration based futures modelling navigation system. I've built stuff for a few hundred dollars that can fly without external sensing, and using only a pre-programed route. For those rare cases where you need a drone dead now, signal interception is a waste of time. Send another autonomous drone or send the damn falcon after it. However, the drone is probably a much cheaper option.

 

[C-rizzle]

Seems like a lot of wasted time, complexity & money when a bullet costs about a quarter.