5 ms·

> Drones can fly either high enough to not be easily seen By eye, yes. By digital camera? That would have to be pretty high. At least on clear days. But th

> Drones can fly either high enough to not be easily seen By eye, yes. By digital camera? That would have to be pretty high. At least on clear days. But there are days where visibility is low in general, and that goes for cars too. > Or they can be launched near a target and fly low. High risk targets should have additional safeguards. It's not hard for cars to get to some locations just because they aren't allowed, but because there is additional security and physical obstructions. One solution never covers all cases, and we shouldn't expect it to. > But you need another licensed vehicle at that point to transport it. Or you hire someone to tow it. Yes, it's harder. But also it's not like every time you get behind the wheel of a car someone checks that you're licensed. How many times have you had your license checked while driving? How many hours have you driven? > You think that a 2 pound drone is only "slightly easier" to transport surreptitiously than a 2 ton car? I think in the case you are planning to use it illegally, it's not really that much of a difference. Seriously, you can probably walk into any rundown part of town, buy some older beat up car for cash for under $1000 dollars, and immediately use it for your purpose while the title change is in the mail (for states that allow that), if the person selling it really even cares. Drones are new, so there's less infrastructure to track and manage them, but it's not really all that different IMO, it's just a matter of time.

learc83 8y ago
Yes, I agree automobile regulations won't stop a determined terrorist from using a car to commit a crime. I think you've done a great job illustrating why similar laws requiring licensing and registration will be completely ineffective at stopping terrorist from using drones, which is the context of this whole discussion.
jsjohnst 8y ago
> By eye, yes. By digital camera? That would have to be pretty high. At least on clear days. Have you ever seen a hobby drone flown? I challenge you to see a typical model flying at 250ft feet with anything not using a telephoto lens, even on a clear day, unless you already knew where it was (aka saw it from a lower altitude and followed it up).
- kbenson 8y ago
  > I challenge you to see a typical model flying at 250ft feet with anything not using a telephoto lens, even on a clear day, unless you already knew where it was Do you think you could identity a drone moving at 50 feet using a video camera that recorded as 640x480? Because approximately the same number of pixels would by used on a 4k capable video camera at 250 feet, and that's before any optical zoom at all. As long as you can identify something moving, it can be zoomed in on and classified (either by the same camera or a secondary one dedicated to the task), or just give the camera more pixels and use digital zoom. A few of those in a cluster would cover an area quite well I think. For another way to think of this, an object that is 8" (assuming a 12" drone at an angle) should appear to be a quarter the size of the moon to the naked eye at 300 feet.[1] I don't think that's something a good quality camera should have trouble picking up. 1: http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm, input angle in minutes 7.5, size .666, using their example which says the moon appears to be about 40 minutes in angle size.
  - jsjohnst 8y ago
    > For another way to think of this, an object that is 8" (assuming a 12" drone at an angle) should appear to be a quarter the size of the moon to the naked eye at 300 feet. If a drone was a solid spherical mass like the moon, your guesstimate might have some merit, but it’s not. In reality, your 8” is already way overshooting it. Furthermore, the amount of light reflecting by the moon is significantly higher providing much higher contrast for edge detection. The matte white plastic of many common drones however easily blends into the sky. Am I saying no camera would do it? No, that’s obviously wrong. But the post I replied to used a very vague wording which implies a majority of cameras would do it, which is definitely not the case. Happy to provide real photos to inspect this weekend (assuming it’s not still raining) at 100, 200, 300, and 350ft at whatever megapixel you’d like (up to 22mp) and focal length (from 8-1600mm, 35mm equivalent) so you can see what I mean.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > In reality, your 8” is already way overshooting it. Given the body area of most these drones, I'm not so sure. I'd best the visible cross-section is pretty close to 64 sq. inches from most angles, if you include the small amount of area from the arms, but ignoring rotors. > But the post I replied to used a very vague wording which implies a majority of cameras would do it I don't read what I said that way. I said a digital camera, as in there exists a camera or type of camera that would work. I mean, there's some pretty crappy digital cameras out there, if you want to go really cheap. > Happy to provide real photos to inspect this weekend (assuming it’s not still raining) at 100, 200, 300, and 350ft at whatever megapixel you’d like (up to 22mp) and focal length (from 8-1600mm, 35mm equivalent) so you can see what I mean. Sure, I would be interested in see how it looks in practice. I purposefully limited myself to a little over 8 megapixels (4k) as I assumed video, and that's fairly easy to get with consumer grade hardware, which sets a nice precedent. If cheap consumer grade hardware can do it, a government solution with possibly special purpose hardware would have no problem. Knowing how a decent still camera views it at full res with little or no zoom would be a good way to look at is, as I think that would approximate a high-end video system, or a mid-range one in a couple years. I get emails on replies, so I shouldn't miss it even if it's a few days later.

learc83 8y ago

Yes, I agree automobile regulations won't stop a determined terrorist from using a car to commit a crime. I think you've done a great job illustrating why similar laws requiring licensing and registration will be completely ineffective at stopping terrorist from using drones, which is the context of this whole discussion.

jsjohnst 8y ago

> By eye, yes. By digital camera? That would have to be pretty high. At least on clear days. Have you ever seen a hobby drone flown? I challenge you to see a typical model flying at 250ft feet with anything not using a telephoto lens, even on a clear day, unless you already knew where it was (aka saw it from a lower altitude and followed it up).

kbenson 8y ago
> I challenge you to see a typical model flying at 250ft feet with anything not using a telephoto lens, even on a clear day, unless you already knew where it was Do you think you could identity a drone moving at 50 feet using a video camera that recorded as 640x480? Because approximately the same number of pixels would by used on a 4k capable video camera at 250 feet, and that's before any optical zoom at all. As long as you can identify something moving, it can be zoomed in on and classified (either by the same camera or a secondary one dedicated to the task), or just give the camera more pixels and use digital zoom. A few of those in a cluster would cover an area quite well I think. For another way to think of this, an object that is 8" (assuming a 12" drone at an angle) should appear to be a quarter the size of the moon to the naked eye at 300 feet.[1] I don't think that's something a good quality camera should have trouble picking up. 1: http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm, input angle in minutes 7.5, size .666, using their example which says the moon appears to be about 40 minutes in angle size.
- jsjohnst 8y ago
  > For another way to think of this, an object that is 8" (assuming a 12" drone at an angle) should appear to be a quarter the size of the moon to the naked eye at 300 feet. If a drone was a solid spherical mass like the moon, your guesstimate might have some merit, but it’s not. In reality, your 8” is already way overshooting it. Furthermore, the amount of light reflecting by the moon is significantly higher providing much higher contrast for edge detection. The matte white plastic of many common drones however easily blends into the sky. Am I saying no camera would do it? No, that’s obviously wrong. But the post I replied to used a very vague wording which implies a majority of cameras would do it, which is definitely not the case. Happy to provide real photos to inspect this weekend (assuming it’s not still raining) at 100, 200, 300, and 350ft at whatever megapixel you’d like (up to 22mp) and focal length (from 8-1600mm, 35mm equivalent) so you can see what I mean.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > In reality, your 8” is already way overshooting it. Given the body area of most these drones, I'm not so sure. I'd best the visible cross-section is pretty close to 64 sq. inches from most angles, if you include the small amount of area from the arms, but ignoring rotors. > But the post I replied to used a very vague wording which implies a majority of cameras would do it I don't read what I said that way. I said a digital camera, as in there exists a camera or type of camera that would work. I mean, there's some pretty crappy digital cameras out there, if you want to go really cheap. > Happy to provide real photos to inspect this weekend (assuming it’s not still raining) at 100, 200, 300, and 350ft at whatever megapixel you’d like (up to 22mp) and focal length (from 8-1600mm, 35mm equivalent) so you can see what I mean. Sure, I would be interested in see how it looks in practice. I purposefully limited myself to a little over 8 megapixels (4k) as I assumed video, and that's fairly easy to get with consumer grade hardware, which sets a nice precedent. If cheap consumer grade hardware can do it, a government solution with possibly special purpose hardware would have no problem. Knowing how a decent still camera views it at full res with little or no zoom would be a good way to look at is, as I think that would approximate a high-end video system, or a mid-range one in a couple years. I get emails on replies, so I shouldn't miss it even if it's a few days later.