Hexacopters with video?

[Simon of the Playa]

hear hear.

the voice of reason.


it's just a tool, it's what you make with it and how you utilize it thats important.





















i'm using mine for aerial porn, i mean erotic video...btw, who wants to see my tool from 50 meters up?

[BBadger]

Exceptional situation and assumption of risk

Those pretty much grant me the right to shoot down any motherfucking flying crap I can reach, right?

They don't "grant" you anything. You already had that "right" (ability) just as you have the "right" to bulldoze over peoples' camps with your truck. The risk you're taking by doing so is being charged/sued for destruction of property, reckless endangerment, or other crimes. Likewise, the drone operators are operating under the assumption that their drones are not going to be shot out of the air by people, or at least if those drones are shot out of the air, that they can catch whomever did it and have legal recourse.

In the end, I think the drone operators would win the legal battle if push came to shove. Vigilante action is not looked upon kindly because we like to foster a civilized society, governed by law. We don't want every damn technophobe using cell phone jammers to prevent people using phones on the road, or shooting jets out of the air because of some fear that they'll crash on their property.

I'm really surprised by the amount of air-time these drone accidents and pervy video issues are being granted. Considering the danger of mutant vehicles, and the presence of cameras in general, why are drones being selected out as the battleground for these issues? It reminds me of all the side-issue distractions that come up in the elections. These drone accidents and pervy videos are really just red herrings for more important issues others have brought up.

We should really be more concerned about issues such as law enforcement using drones at Burning Man for blanket surveillance from the air that they could even use to analyze after the event. Law enforcement should be the first target for applying this "reasonable expectations of privacy" standard under our Fourth Amendment rights -- not these side issues of some weirdo getting his jollies at Burning Man from the air. Trilo also brought up the issue of unauthorized commercial use of the footage, which was one of the first things BMOrg attempted to regulate. This other stuff? People need some perspective.

[FossaFerox]

Badge, accepting civilian use paves the way for the blanket acceptance of LEO use. Law enforcement are never denied access that is granted to regular civilians, they are granted more.

More to the point, you need to stop comparing drones to MVs.

MVs stick to designated areas, are easy to see, easy to avoid.

Drones invade people's camps and put them at risk without warning.

There is no comparison.

[Simon of the Playa]

yadda yadda hippy blather yadda.

[FossaFerox]

yadda yadda hippy blather yadda.

I forgot that right-to-privacy and self preservation weren't mainstream virtues.

[Captain Goddammit]

Well I dunno about you guys but I've been reading up on drone control radios.
They're very low power. 5 watts would eradicate their signal.
The trick is building a. 2.4ghz amplifier and figuring out exactly what to transmit.
Just dropping someone's drone out of the sky would be great fun but the REAL cool thing would be the ability to take over control and fly it away from you when it approached.

[GreyCoyote]

Capt: no need to build a 2.4 gig amp. You can buy them all day long. Here ya go, up to 35 watts: http://www.l-com.com/wireless-booster-3 ... amplifiers

Of course, someone will point out there are rules against this, and of course there are. (-snicker-). But a note saying "these are for export use" gets ya anything you can afford. I have been using their 2 watt units for years. Bulletproof and 12-volt capable. And great support after the sale.

"May the drone that you pwn be owned by the Throne".

[BBadger]

Badge, accepting civilian use paves the way for the blanket acceptance of LEO use. Law enforcement are never denied access that is granted to regular civilians, they are granted more.

That is not correct. Law enforcement are specifically restricted in the way they conduct their operations. This is the core of the 4th Amendment, and the difference between unlawful search and seizure and something like theft and trespassing. With respect to drones, some jurisdictions expressly forbid the use of drones for law enforcement without probable cause and a warrant for use in an investigation. Civilians may suffer penalties from violating certain statutes or other laws, but law enforcement is held to a different set of standards specifically because they're dealing with criminal investigations.

More to the point, you need to stop comparing drones to MVs.

MVs stick to designated areas, are easy to see, easy to avoid.

Drones invade people's camps and put them at risk without warning.

There is no comparison.

The way mutant vehicles are regulated is a perfect and, in fact over-representing, comparison. MVs aren't sticking to their designated areas, speeds, lights, and other rules because of the virtue of their operators. They're bound to those rules because their operation is regulated.

Let me ask you this: is an MV "easy to avoid" when it's driving at 30mph across the desert? At night when it has no lights? Are MVs "magically" forbidden from entering certain areas of the city to play their music at full blast?

What do you think prevents all these potentially lethal situations involving multi-ton vehicles that aren't even street-worthy? Situations that could cause harm and death on scales far worse than any drone? The regulations in place and DMV.

Drones invade peoples' camps precisely because they're not regulated at all at Burning Man except for some recent rules regarding cameras and flying near fire zones. In a similar situation, MVs could invade camps, neighborhoods, drive too fast, have zero lighting, play music too loudly, be overloaded, have inebriated drivers, and every other safety hazard that is currently regulated by the DMV. That was the whole reason the DMV was invented. We can do the same for drones.

What I really don't get in this entire thread is why so many people here are harboring this absolutely stupid assumption that the current no-rules situation for drones is the template for the future. Clear these naive and silly notions out of your heads. Really, what the hell?

This is an opportunity to shape the way drone operators conduct themselves by establishing regulations on this type of vehicle -- just as we have for mutant vehicles. If we don't want drones flying around and over the city, well holy shit, that can be written into the regulations. If we want to require drones to carry dataloggers to track their movements, and auto-pilot systems to prevent straying away from operators, that can happen too. If we want regulations on filming, lenses, weight allowances, etc. that is no problem.

But what we shouldn't be doing is believing that the only solution to perceived "bad things" is to outright ban something. Can you imagine if this regressive thinking were applied to other potentially dangerous stuff at Burning Man like mutant vehicles?

Well I dunno about you guys but I've been reading up on drone control radios.
They're very low power. 5 watts would eradicate their signal.
The trick is building a. 2.4ghz amplifier and figuring out exactly what to transmit.
Just dropping someone's drone out of the sky would be great fun but the REAL cool thing would be the ability to take over control and fly it away from you when it approached.

When I hear of these jamming vigilante actions I think the perpetrators are going to be more dangerous than the actual drone operators. Imagine, for example, that some idiot uses his jammer or a slingshot on a drone causing that drone to lose control and crash into someone's tent.

Way to go buddy. You really saved the day there.

[FossaFerox]

Badge. MV rules are enforceable. Drone rules are not. There are plenty of drone rules in place already that were broken left or right without any recourse because recourse is not possible.

Cops can pull over an MV that's breaking the rules. They can impound the vehicle not to mention fine or imprison the operator.

If a drone is breaking the rules there is nothing to be done beyond attempting to follow it back to its operator. Good luck if they're operating at any kind of range when they break the rules. Or if they seriously fuck up they can just write the drone off and let it drop.

I can give a cop a description of an MV that cut a corner too closely and destroyed my tent. They can be found. What do I tell them when a drone buzzes my camp? Even if it were highly identifiable they're absurdly easy to hide. Fly low, high tail it back to the operator, land, and no one can prove shit.

[GreyCoyote]

Capt: Next up could be a software defined radio. Analog makes a couple of nice chips, and Greary makes a complete radio that includes a Windows driver and full config program capable of 2.4 gig in any modulation scheme you could imagine. Schweeett! Team this up with an export amp and a handheld 30 dbi gain antenna, and you would own the sky.

Hypothetically, of course.

[Captain Goddammit]

When I hear of these jamming vigilante actions I think the perpetrators are going to be more dangerous than the actual drone operators.

Nah… I doubt a falling drone is gonna kill anyone. That's never been my beef. The things are just annoying. I think the ability to direct it away when it approached would be great.
I doubt a drone is going to physically hurt anyone at Burning Man. But I'm sure that drones are going to irritate people. No one likes a "spy in the sky" peering at them and recording them. Fuck that. That's where the comparison to MVs loses credibility; MVs don't do that. The safety angle is bullshit. The real issue is the unmanned spy cameras aboard the drones.

[FossaFerox]

Nah… I doubt a falling drone is gonna kill anyone.

Trigger warnings on these links. The last two are very gruesome. Cuts and lacerations. Lots of blood. All from drones. Most were suffered by the people operating the drone, people who KNEW the drone was there, etc. The injuries would likely be way worse if this happened to you without warning. The last link has a lot of "set up" injuries thrown in, but it still shows what the blades on even a small quadcopter do to human flesh and it isn't pretty.

Death from an RC AV
While not a death, the injury is life threatening, definitely the end of your burn and a trip back to Reno in a full sized AV
Most of the pages in this thread have a ton of terrible pictures all from different incidents, don't think it's limited to just page 6

[some seeing eye]

Although the 2.4GHz band is unlicensed, that does not mean you can broadcast from radios that aren't approved by the FCC. Linear amps are a very bad idea. I believe the reason the org did not want drones at the manburn is because the pyro is managed my radio. Safety problem. A good portion of in city coms are over 2.4. Do not use radio stupidity to attack drone stupidity.

[renolaw]

hear hear.

the voice of reason.


it's just a tool, it's what you make with it and how you utilize it thats important.





















i'm using mine for aerial porn, i mean erotic video...btw, who wants to see my tool from 50 meters up?

Same argument in the gun control debate.

[Captain Goddammit]

And they don't allow guns at BM.

[theCryptofishist]

Can we get this merged with the hexayurt thread? We could call it something like dodecathlon for all.

[Simon of the Playa]

i'm putting a gun on my drone.

[Captain Goddammit]

So I'm thinking about constructing a nice simple spark gap transmitter. But instead of a dinky 12volt car ignition system coil, I've got several rather large old neon sign transformers lying around left over from making some "Jacobs Ladders".
And fuck you, it's perfectly legal for me to do so.
Turning it on is illegal. But I wouldn't do that. Trust me.
It's just a tool. It all depends on the operator. Right?

[H.G.Crosby]

"...YOU MAY DIE..."

[Simon of the Playa]

From the Front Page of Rochester NY...

[Elliot]

[Roberto Dobbisano]

[media]

[BBadger]

Badge. MV rules are enforceable. Drone rules are not. There are plenty of drone rules in place already that were broken left or right without any recourse because recourse is not possible.

That's an unqualified assumption. These drones can indeed be controlled, confiscated, and overall regulated by the event organizers -- just like everything else at the event. Even the users of cell phone jammers have been caught. But even with minimal ability to enforce, the problem here is that there are no mechanisms in place at all that provide some level of control. Certainly, it may not be to the level of MVs, but the purpose is the same: 1) providing an avenue for legal use of these drones, 2) establishes rules so that people can identify and report violations, 3) provides a mechanism to allow legal confiscation of such drones. Sure, it's not going to prevent all cases, but that's not the point.

The point is having a greater level of control than is possible than something like a blanket ban. For the same reasons you're citing, people can operate their drones with impunity. The only difference with a ban is that you have zero control over the people who are willing to use their properly, and within regulations. You're also punishing those who want to use their drones responsibly.

Cops can pull over an MV that's breaking the rules. They can impound the vehicle not to mention fine or imprison the operator.

If a drone is breaking the rules there is nothing to be done beyond attempting to follow it back to its operator. Good luck if they're operating at any kind of range when they break the rules. Or if they seriously fuck up they can just write the drone off and let it drop.

I can give a cop a description of an MV that cut a corner too closely and destroyed my tent. They can be found. What do I tell them when a drone buzzes my camp? Even if it were highly identifiable they're absurdly easy to hide. Fly low, high tail it back to the operator, land, and no one can prove shit.

These arguments are fine, but people will do that anyway whether there's a ban or not. Only now you have no control, or even awareness, for people who are willing to comply with the rules.

We can apply this kind of thinking to people videotaping at Burning Man. Will we start banning all cameras because some people are using the footage outside the rules? These "absurdly easy to hide" cameras that could be used for perverse purposes? These cameras that can be used at range with no way to identify the user? No. Instead we implement rules with the idea that it's better than leaving things unregulated. Many or most people will comply with the regulations, and those who do not would not anyway. Now at least we have some measure of control, whereas otherwise we have none.

hear hear.

the voice of reason.

it's just a tool, it's what you make with it and how you utilize it thats important.

Same argument in the gun control debate.

And the point of that statement is...?

[Captain Goddammit]

For me it's not all about Burning Man. If someone flies one over my yard and peers in my house, I have every intention of destroying said craft.
After further study I'm thinking a spark gap transmitter might have a hard time with 2.4 Ghz radios, but I've got other plans on the drawing board.
At BM I'll tolerate them as long as they don't get obnoxious. I believe you should treat others just as well as they treat you. So hopefully, the drone flyers will be respectful and responsible, and I won't flip any switches on any funny looking metal boxes.

(Maniacal laugh as the captain retreats belowdecks to his secret laBOORatory)

[BBadger]

Just use a water balloon (at your house, not at BM). Still, you'll need to see if your jurisdiction allows you to destroy property that enters your "airspace" even if it's violating your privacy.

[Captain Goddammit]

Just use a water balloon (at your house, not at BM). Still, you'll need to see if your jurisdiction allows you to destroy property that enters your "airspace" even if it's violating your privacy.

I do happen to have an industrial-size home made water balloon launcher, limited only by the balloon's ability to withstand launch g-forces.
I've also got a very large steel air cannon that can blast water (or gasoline, ignited on the way out by a propane pilot flame).
The problem with direct mechanical drone elimination is that annoying bit about what I'm supposedly allowed to do. That's why I prefer it if the thing crashes all by itself, and I had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.

[Elliot]

Well, I have a very light 20 foot aluminum pole, which I am turning into The World's Largest Fly Swatter.

[FossaFerox]

Badge, you're seriously grasping at straws. If drones were banned outright then they could be reported any time they launched, would be far easier to track, etc. As it currently stands reporting a violation does jack shit since the violation is likely over by the time you find a ranger. And of course there's no way to prove who it was that broke the rules so there are no repercussions. The violation still took place and unlike non-compliant videography it was far more invasive AND IT PUT LIVES AT RISK.

Yes, they can catch people with cell phone jammers, that's because they're illegal and they can triangulate on each and every one they encounter. There's no need to figure out which is which, they can move on each one. If drones are permitted then there's no way to separate them out when you're trying to triangulate in on a given source. If 1 drone is behaving and 1 breaks the rules you have to visually track the rule breaker until you triangulate in on an active source who are unable to prove they're piloting a different drone. It isn't feasible.

[Captain Goddammit]

I used to participate in radio tracking events as a sport.
Depending on how and where it's used, a jammer as discussed here, uses in short bursts on very rare occasions - good f'n luck!
If it's not moving and used continuously, and you can get it that high on the FCC's priority list, then yeah sure.

[GreyCoyote]

The natives have this thing called a "bolo"...

The yuppie version uses three tennis balls as end-weights and 50 lb monofilament for the arms. You could carry it in a pocket until a need arises. Costs about a buck in parts. We may have to "playa-test" this.