7 ms·

Drone Maker DJI Adds Technology to Limit Where Its Machines Can Fly

26 points by digital55 11y ago

mhb 11y ago
Phil Greenspun's comments: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2015/11/13/drones-in-controlled-airspace/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2015/11/13/drones-in-cont...
- slm_HN 11y ago
  His experience, that DJI drones are allowed to fly near airports, is the exact opposite of my experience. I was in the San Juan islands doing some aerial photography with a DJI Phantom III. On Orcas island I unknowingly setup next to an airport. It was a very small airport behind a treed hill, so I didn't realize where it was. The drone considered it a no-fly zone and refused to take off. So I consider it unlikely that gigantic Logan airport isn't in the system, while tiny Orcas Island airport is in the system.
celticninja 11y ago
if it can be coded in it can be coded out.
- joosters 11y ago
  So? It's still useful for most drone users - I would guess that many of the problem drone flights are caused by people being unaware of the flight regulations. These geofences will stop them from accidentally causing problems.
  - celticninja 11y ago
    of course, if this is its aim then it will work just fine but it would be trivial to override by someone that wanted to.
pmx 11y ago
This would be a great thing to have "open" so that any flight software can consume the feed of no-fly areas and adhere to them. It could either be self-imposed or required by law but either way it would go a long way to improving the image that "drones" currently have.
geggam 11y ago
marks that drone off his list
tomswartz07 11y ago
I applaud this. My opinion is that the vast majority of the issues are caused by people who buy a drone off the shelf and take it up as high as it can go on their first flight. This move will help stop general folks who have no idea about the rules and regulations from flying where they should not. It's not going to stop the folks that (arguably) should know better, but it's an exellent start.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  There's a problem though - most off-the-shelf drones don't have a GPS. But generally, I agree. An easy to circumvent lock seems like a good idea. Enough of an obstacle to block general population from doing their stupid things, while still allowing those who know what they're doing to exercise the full capabilities of the machine (taking the responsibility for eventual damage).
  - tomswartz07 11y ago
    > Enough of an obstacle to block general population from doing their stupid things, while still allowing those who know what they're doing to exercise the full capabilities of the machine (taking the responsibility for eventual damage). This is exactly it. I'm 1000% okay with this. I hope that the eventual DOT regulations are following this line of thought.
ultramancool 11y ago
Great, DRM on drones. This'll be fun to crack at least. Out of curiosity, what does it do if GPS is unavailable? From what I've heard, jamming GPS is pretty easy.
- JumpCrisscross 11y ago
  > DRM on drones. This'll be fun to crack at least. You'd lose manufacturer recourse in case something goes wrong.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ultramancool 11y ago
    They said that about rooting my phone but I still returned it just fine.
brenschluss 11y ago
Savvy move on DJI's part. They probably know that the DRM will be cracked out pretty soon, and I bet they don't care. The point is that they can still claim compliance/friendliness, making sure that 1) the drone market keeps on growing, and that 2) their PR image becomes one of a 'responsible professional drone company '.
donatj 11y ago
There's so much hysteria over toy flying helicopters which I hesitate to call drones, I don't get it. If an airplane did hit a drone would it really be worse than say a goose? Except for the very large professional ones, they're very light and mostly plastic. Mythbusters more or less proved the consumer models are basically harmless to humans and couldn't break the skin. As always something new comes along and people are terrified. It's our stupid nature.
- tomswartz07 11y ago
  The propellers can absolutely break skin. A commercial quadcopter motor typically runs at 1000KV, meaning that it spins at 1000 RPM per Volt. Most batteries are 12-14 volts. Even for little plastic bits, if they're spinning at 12,000RPM, theres a lot of kinetic energy behind them.
  - mattlutze 11y ago
    There was, ironically, a MythBusters episode[0] on last night in which they were flying quadcopter drones into dummy torsos (complete with major neck arteries) to see what happened. I'll admit I was surprised to see that, indeed, they were able to puncture through that poor soul's ballistic gel neck and sever the "aorta." 0: http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/drone-decapitation-high-speed/ http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/drone-d...
    - falcolas 11y ago
      Yes, with carbon fiber blades and a custom octocopter designed to carry 20lb payloads. Neither of which applies to the commonly available multirotors on the market.
      - donatj 11y ago
        Yep, the non-carbon fiber one just bent in the episode.
- smackfu 11y ago
jellicle 11y ago
>Self-Driving Car Maker XXXX Adds Technology To Limit Where Its Machines Can Drive
- zardo 11y ago
  The intent is usually to keep them on the road.
  - ccozan 11y ago
    Yes, but what stops US Gov to ask car manufacturers to automatically stop engine ( electric or ICE ) if you come too close to, let's say, White House? Or follow a certain road which may lead to some secret facility. This is doable even now.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Why should you want to stop them? US Gov should have a perfect right to do that (in the US, that is), that's the point of having a government.
too_late 11y ago
I should market a drone that only flies in restricted airzones. We own the sky yall.
mattlutze 11y ago
I would be interested to know how on-demand the No Fly zones can be updated -- interesting tool to, say, ensure there aren't any amateur camera-copters floating around accident scenes, public demonstrations an the like.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  This also raises the question of who's making these decisions and why. It makes you think if these decisions could be open to influence somehow. Say a rich tenet in a NYC penthouse doesn't want any drones flying around his building. How do you enact a geofence around his building and then enforce that?
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    Get the drone's ID (assuming there's such a thing) and report it to the police.
    - at-fates-hands 11y ago
      Apparently this is in the works: http://www.dailydot.com/technology/lightcense-drone-identification-system/ http://www.dailydot.com/technology/lightcense-drone-identifi... Instead of the standard alphanumerical plates that are affixed to cars, drones would be equipped with a set of bright, multicolored LED lights. The lights would flash in a unique sequence that would correlate to the owner. A smartphone app would identify the pattern and search the database for the operator the vehicle is registered to. pretty ingenious if you ask me.
wyager 11y ago
Great, more DRM is always so nice. There was a talk at defcon this year by a Chinese researcher (I forget her name) where she A) spoofed the GPS signal so that a GPS-restricted copter (which I guess already exists in China) could fly in a no-fly zone and B) convinced a bunch of copters flying in a park that they were, in fact, suddenly in a no-fly zone, and so they promptly crashed. It is not the job of my machines to police my behaviour on behalf of the government. If a machine is physically capable of doing something, there should always be a way for me to do it. A warning (e.g. A restricted airspace alert) is fine, but the technology should not presume to override my commands based on its (easily confused) interpretation of the law. Users should control machines, not the other way around.
narrator 11y ago
The drone regulations will be used to control robots in the future. All uses of robots with advanced AI will be limited by such rules. Self driving cars are next, especially since a self-driving car could easily be programmed to commit a criminal act. Robots will put everyone out of a job because only a certain few will be allowed to program robots that could hypothetically commit criminal acts. Writing a program for a drone or a self-driving car will require the same level of scrutiny as developing a medical device or aviation flight control systems. That's the problem with our robotic future: the technology will be controlled by a priesthood of highly regulated experts that work for large corporations because the technologies are considered too dangerous to be left in the hands of average people.

26 points by digital55 11y ago

mhb 11y ago

Phil Greenspun's comments: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2015/11/13/drones-in-controlled-airspace/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2015/11/13/drones-in-cont...

slm_HN 11y ago
His experience, that DJI drones are allowed to fly near airports, is the exact opposite of my experience. I was in the San Juan islands doing some aerial photography with a DJI Phantom III. On Orcas island I unknowingly setup next to an airport. It was a very small airport behind a treed hill, so I didn't realize where it was. The drone considered it a no-fly zone and refused to take off. So I consider it unlikely that gigantic Logan airport isn't in the system, while tiny Orcas Island airport is in the system.

celticninja 11y ago

if it can be coded in it can be coded out.

joosters 11y ago
So? It's still useful for most drone users - I would guess that many of the problem drone flights are caused by people being unaware of the flight regulations. These geofences will stop them from accidentally causing problems.
- celticninja 11y ago
  of course, if this is its aim then it will work just fine but it would be trivial to override by someone that wanted to.

pmx 11y ago

This would be a great thing to have "open" so that any flight software can consume the feed of no-fly areas and adhere to them. It could either be self-imposed or required by law but either way it would go a long way to improving the image that "drones" currently have.

geggam 11y ago

marks that drone off his list

tomswartz07 11y ago

I applaud this. My opinion is that the vast majority of the issues are caused by people who buy a drone off the shelf and take it up as high as it can go on their first flight. This move will help stop general folks who have no idea about the rules and regulations from flying where they should not. It's not going to stop the folks that (arguably) should know better, but it's an exellent start.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
There's a problem though - most off-the-shelf drones don't have a GPS. But generally, I agree. An easy to circumvent lock seems like a good idea. Enough of an obstacle to block general population from doing their stupid things, while still allowing those who know what they're doing to exercise the full capabilities of the machine (taking the responsibility for eventual damage).
- tomswartz07 11y ago
  > Enough of an obstacle to block general population from doing their stupid things, while still allowing those who know what they're doing to exercise the full capabilities of the machine (taking the responsibility for eventual damage). This is exactly it. I'm 1000% okay with this. I hope that the eventual DOT regulations are following this line of thought.

ultramancool 11y ago

Great, DRM on drones. This'll be fun to crack at least. Out of curiosity, what does it do if GPS is unavailable? From what I've heard, jamming GPS is pretty easy.

JumpCrisscross 11y ago
> DRM on drones. This'll be fun to crack at least. You'd lose manufacturer recourse in case something goes wrong.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ultramancool 11y ago
  They said that about rooting my phone but I still returned it just fine.

brenschluss 11y ago

Savvy move on DJI's part. They probably know that the DRM will be cracked out pretty soon, and I bet they don't care. The point is that they can still claim compliance/friendliness, making sure that 1) the drone market keeps on growing, and that 2) their PR image becomes one of a 'responsible professional drone company '.

donatj 11y ago

There's so much hysteria over toy flying helicopters which I hesitate to call drones, I don't get it. If an airplane did hit a drone would it really be worse than say a goose? Except for the very large professional ones, they're very light and mostly plastic. Mythbusters more or less proved the consumer models are basically harmless to humans and couldn't break the skin. As always something new comes along and people are terrified. It's our stupid nature.

tomswartz07 11y ago
The propellers can absolutely break skin. A commercial quadcopter motor typically runs at 1000KV, meaning that it spins at 1000 RPM per Volt. Most batteries are 12-14 volts. Even for little plastic bits, if they're spinning at 12,000RPM, theres a lot of kinetic energy behind them.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  There was, ironically, a MythBusters episode[0] on last night in which they were flying quadcopter drones into dummy torsos (complete with major neck arteries) to see what happened. I'll admit I was surprised to see that, indeed, they were able to puncture through that poor soul's ballistic gel neck and sever the "aorta." 0: http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/drone-decapitation-high-speed/ http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/drone-d...
  - falcolas 11y ago
    Yes, with carbon fiber blades and a custom octocopter designed to carry 20lb payloads. Neither of which applies to the commonly available multirotors on the market.
    - donatj 11y ago
      Yep, the non-carbon fiber one just bent in the episode.
smackfu 11y ago

jellicle 11y ago

>Self-Driving Car Maker XXXX Adds Technology To Limit Where Its Machines Can Drive

zardo 11y ago
The intent is usually to keep them on the road.
- ccozan 11y ago
  Yes, but what stops US Gov to ask car manufacturers to automatically stop engine ( electric or ICE ) if you come too close to, let's say, White House? Or follow a certain road which may lead to some secret facility. This is doable even now.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Why should you want to stop them? US Gov should have a perfect right to do that (in the US, that is), that's the point of having a government.

too_late 11y ago

I should market a drone that only flies in restricted airzones. We own the sky yall.

mattlutze 11y ago

I would be interested to know how on-demand the No Fly zones can be updated -- interesting tool to, say, ensure there aren't any amateur camera-copters floating around accident scenes, public demonstrations an the like.

at-fates-hands 11y ago
This also raises the question of who's making these decisions and why. It makes you think if these decisions could be open to influence somehow. Say a rich tenet in a NYC penthouse doesn't want any drones flying around his building. How do you enact a geofence around his building and then enforce that?
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  Get the drone's ID (assuming there's such a thing) and report it to the police.
  - at-fates-hands 11y ago
    Apparently this is in the works: http://www.dailydot.com/technology/lightcense-drone-identification-system/ http://www.dailydot.com/technology/lightcense-drone-identifi... Instead of the standard alphanumerical plates that are affixed to cars, drones would be equipped with a set of bright, multicolored LED lights. The lights would flash in a unique sequence that would correlate to the owner. A smartphone app would identify the pattern and search the database for the operator the vehicle is registered to. pretty ingenious if you ask me.

wyager 11y ago

Great, more DRM is always so nice. There was a talk at defcon this year by a Chinese researcher (I forget her name) where she A) spoofed the GPS signal so that a GPS-restricted copter (which I guess already exists in China) could fly in a no-fly zone and B) convinced a bunch of copters flying in a park that they were, in fact, suddenly in a no-fly zone, and so they promptly crashed. It is not the job of my machines to police my behaviour on behalf of the government. If a machine is physically capable of doing something, there should always be a way for me to do it. A warning (e.g. A restricted airspace alert) is fine, but the technology should not presume to override my commands based on its (easily confused) interpretation of the law. Users should control machines, not the other way around.

narrator 11y ago

The drone regulations will be used to control robots in the future. All uses of robots with advanced AI will be limited by such rules. Self driving cars are next, especially since a self-driving car could easily be programmed to commit a criminal act. Robots will put everyone out of a job because only a certain few will be allowed to program robots that could hypothetically commit criminal acts. Writing a program for a drone or a self-driving car will require the same level of scrutiny as developing a medical device or aviation flight control systems. That's the problem with our robotic future: the technology will be controlled by a priesthood of highly regulated experts that work for large corporations because the technologies are considered too dangerous to be left in the hands of average people.