Is it illegal to target drones with lasers?

[Benm]

I'm not sure about the US, but here the equivalent of the FCC has listening stations that use arrays of log-periodic antenna's so they they detect illegal transmissions over a very wide frequency range, and since each can tell direction they only need two or three to pinpoint a source -very- accurately.

The ISM bands are used so widely you could get away with jamming them to some degree. Set up a pirate FM station and your location is known down to the kilometer within a second. They used these systems to take down pirate radio stations by remotely sensing the location so accurately they only needed to drive down to the indicated area and look for the antenna. I guess pirate radio is pretty dead nowadays, but those stations are still operational and track rogue transmissions of any kind.

 

[paul1598419]

For low power jamming, those directional antennae would be useless. A pirate radio station is a totally different animal. I could locate it myself with a directional antenna and enough time. Something putting out less than a watt would be pretty much invisible.

 

[94Z28]

I don't see a laser bringing down any quads in all honesty.. and jamming them would probably take more time than it's worth. If they were flying FPV you could use a 5.8G receiver and pick up their video; find out where they land and then show the evidence of their flight over your property and that you feel your privacy is at risk. If they do it again, send the video to proper authorities.

I know the VTX I use is 5.8G and has channel selection, I have multiple 5.8G RX I can tune into at a time.

Some quads run 2.4ghz which is the same as many home phones, WiFi, etc.. and even some FPV is driven by wifi many times without password.

I never fly over people's homes, I either keep it in my property or I take them way up into the sky. If someone asked me not to fly over their house; i wouldn't. I like my privacy, and respect others.

 

[Vetttech]

All this talk of jamming! Why not just use a remote on the same frequency and take over control of the drone! Just a thought!:thinking:

 

[Benm]

Because that may not work?

The remote singal codes to control a drone are manufacturer, and possibly model- specific. You could override the remote control if you knew the model and make of the drone you are targetting, if they only use this most basic scheme.

I'd imagine in some drones there is actually a pairing code between remote controller and drone (similar as in bluetooth devices) so multiple drones of the same make and model can be operated at the same time in the same location, for example for things lke drone racing contests and such.

It's a bit of the same idea as 'let me get a radio key for a car of make and model x, so i can open all of these cars' - it should not work.

 

[Radim]

Yes, AFAIK these drones using "Wifi" band are using some pairing keys. That's why you might operate several drones at same frequency simply said. For earlier technology you had to have different crystals to select channels to prevent interference in case of operating two RC models at same frequency band.

The jammer might work as blocking this communication and force drone to land/leave or listen the communication and replicate it with stronger signal, drone than will become controlled by it. In both cases it might work.

I saw a guy in TV, who made a device listening remote car keys used and than was able to replicate the signal and open any common car using RF key technology. Quite scary and random people were surprised he managed to do that. It is more complicated for drones but untill there is not used advanced security (like asymetric cryptography based communication with sufficient keys) complete override might be possible. In any case, you might confuse the drone by stronger signal to make it land or likely return to the start point - effective for privacy protection in any case.

 

[Alaskan]

A nice little directional EMP rail would take care of them too, probably your own stuff at the house at the same time

 

[Chicxulub]

Ok, I'm confused by this, and have been for quite some time, but never have I had a place in which to ask before.

WHY is it illegal to shoot down drones?

I mean I understand if you're living in a development full of cookie cutter houses with tiny yards; it'd be a reckless discharge of a firearm. I'm not talking about that. I live out in the country on acres and acres of land. If there's a drone above my land or my house, it'd be trespassing; there's no legitimate or reasonable reason for it to be there. If it was a person instead of a drone, I'd be well within my rights to shoot him or her no questions asked (castle law state). Why is the drone allowed to be in my airspace?

I'm legitimately confused by this.

 

[lasersbee]

Ok, I'm confused by this, and have been for quite some time, but never have I had a place in which to ask before.

WHY is it illegal to shoot down drones?

I mean I understand if you're living in a development full of cookie cutter houses with tiny yards; it'd be a reckless discharge of a firearm. I'm not talking about that. I live out in the country on acres and acres of land. If there's a drone above my land or my house, it'd be trespassing; there's no legitimate or reasonable reason for it to be there. If it was a person instead of a drone, I'd be well within my rights to shoot him or her no questions asked (castle law state). Why is the drone allowed to be in my airspace?

I'm legitimately confused by this.

I'm legitimately confused by your post....:thinking:

So if I came to your house.... it would be legal to
shoot at me....
There seems to be something not right with that.
If that was the case then anyone coming to your
house would also be armed and ready.

There is a difference between an R/C hobby drone
and a human... IMO


Jerry

 

[Radim]

Ok, I'm confused by this, and have been for quite some time, but never have I had a place in which to ask before.

WHY is it illegal to shoot down drones?

I mean I understand if you're living in a development full of cookie cutter houses with tiny yards; it'd be a reckless discharge of a firearm. I'm not talking about that. I live out in the country on acres and acres of land. If there's a drone above my land or my house, it'd be trespassing; there's no legitimate or reasonable reason for it to be there. If it was a person instead of a drone, I'd be well within my rights to shoot him or her no questions asked (castle law state). Why is the drone allowed to be in my airspace?

I'm legitimately confused by this.

Not sure how it is in your country. But in my the airspace above some level is not owned by landlord AFAIK. Otherwise any plane crossing it would be in trouble of disturbing landlord's rights. Basically there would be not possible to fly any plane. If the drone just passes I do not see a problem. If it is evidently spying you regulary in low altitude you might consider calling police. Still it might not be effective. I'm not lawyer, but common sense should be applied.

 

[Chicxulub]

I'm legitimately confused by your post....:thinking:

So if I came to your house.... it would be legal to
shoot at me....
There seems to be something not right with that.
If that was the case then anyone coming to your
house would also be armed and ready.

There is a difference between an R/C hobby drone
and a human... IMO


Jerry

I'm not saying that I WOULD shoot someone, but castle law in Florida really is that draconian. I'm not even saying that I agree with it, but that IS the law.

Edit- as an example. You're in your house at night and catch someone staring in a window spying on you. The way our state laws are written, you can shoot first and ask questions later.

Oh well, I suppose the point of my question is going to be lost in the inevitable thrum surrounding gun rights.

 

[paul1598419]

Not only that, Radim, but in most, if not all, states here the landowner doesn't own the mineral rights to anything found on or under their land. These "stand your ground" laws in states like Florida are an example of the push by the NRA to try to get more rights for an individual than are provided by laws in the past. If some have their way, we would all be armed and it would be like the old west movies where disputes are settled by armed conflict.

 

[Radim]

Yes, Paul. I know that. Similar it is even here. In London for example (not sure if it is everywhere) the land is formaly only rented for like 99 years as belonging to the Queen (as I was told this reason). The cost of the rent corresponds of the price of the land, with right of extension of it after those 99 years for a small rent like 1 pound or something like this. You have almost all rights and duties as owning it but you do not own it formally. You might only own the construction you build on the so rented land.

Sorry for being a bit off topic.

 

[Benm]

I saw a guy in TV, who made a device listening remote car keys used and than was able to replicate the signal and open any common car using RF key technology.

This being possible would depend on the car really. Way back when car remote door openers where introduced some of them used just a single wireless code to open the doors.

Since then virtually all manufacturers have been using rolling codes, which change the required code every time you want to open the car doors using the remote. Often they roll around 32 bits (a few million) different ones before returning to the beginning of the list.

This can still be attacked though, but only with illegal transmitters that interfere with the car receiving the code properly:

Let's say you wanted to gain entry to a car, and could jam the signal from key to car if you wanted to. You'd turn on the jammer but listen for the key signal. Lets say it transmitted code #1000 on the list. You then store this code, and wait for the user to press the button again since it did not work the first time around.

When the user presses the buttot again it will send code #1001 out, but you are still jamming the link. If you then quickly transmit intercepted code #1000, the user will think locking the car worked and move on.

Yet you also intercepted code #1001 and can use that to open the car.

Doing all this requires you to be close to the target car, which is feasible if you are parked next to it in a garage or something like that.

All this would gain you entry to the target car and allow you to steal anything inside, but you could not drive off with the car in most cases: Most cars use two separate systems, one that opens the doors, and another that allows you to start it. The latter is often a passive RFID system that only works short range.

If you take apart a car key you can find these systems inside, often completely independent of eachother: There is a battery powered system that sends the RF codes to open the doors, and an un-powered system that is required to start the car. The latter often is something in the shape of a capsule and integrated into the keys housing somewhere.

 

[paul1598419]

It's a bit more complicated than that. If you are jamming the signal so the car can't read it, how are you going to read it? You would need something very directional and I personally don't use mine until I'm right at the door of the car.

 

[Radim]

They of course did not say how the device worked exactly. Still it worked on quite new cars what they showed. What I know for sure it is possible to copy even the variable code sequence key (I have experience with that). Just more readings might be needed. I assume the device that guy built uses some database of keys, reads the code once it is transmitted by original key and than it finds those key profiles containing the code and tries which one works. Untill there is no sophisticated asymetric cryptography used, this problem will be present. It was said this is because car manufacturers use still the same system with only little improvements since remote key was introduced. I know they even use the same mechanical keys for more than one car, since they bet that there is just a little likelihood you will find another car fitting the same key. The more risk is with the keys transmitting the signal continiously to allow you open the car as you approach without pulling the key out of your bag/pocket. These might be copied even without you intentionally using it - pushing the button to transmit opening/closing signal.