7 ms·

Drones Get Ready to Fly, Unseen, Into Everyday Life

43 points by cwan 16y ago

patrickryan 16y ago
After viewing the video of the MIT lab using the AR Drone I'm confused... From the Development License of the SDK Drone API (Article 5 v): "AR.Drone, shall have for sole purpose to be used by a User for entertaining, game, leisure or training. The creation of applications for the use of the PARROT Drone for military, and, without limitation, security, watching, spying, defence, cartography is strictly forbidden."
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  "This is for entertainment purposes only" is how manufacturers cover their asses from liability lawsuits when someone uses their product illegally.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  If a machine gun with an SDK was currently sold, I would imagine it would include the following conditions; "Machine gun shall have for its sole purpose training, sport and 'making a loud, satisfying noise'. Use for military purposes or for turning snitches and rival mafia dons into bloody swiss cheese is strictly forbidden"
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Radar detectors are sold under the same sort of disclaimer that they're never, ever, ever to be used to circumvent speed limit laws. It's safe to say we can all roll our eyes at this boilerplate.
- edave 16y ago
  They have the AR.Drone for comparison and entertainment, it's not considered a serious piece of equipment at all. The drone they're actually doing research on is a Ascending Technologies Hummingbird
- asynchronous13 16y ago
  As others noted, this is largely a CYA clause. I suspect the real reason is because UAVs are a legal grey area as far as the FAA regulations are concerned. It is generally accepted that regulations for R/C aircraft also apply to UAVs. The tricky point is that the FAA regs specifically state "for recreation". So you can legally fly an R/C plane and take aerial photos as a hobby. However, if you sell those photos then now you've broken the law. (R/C clubs recommend selling one ground photo and giving away the aerial ones to skirt the issue). The AR.Parrot folks know the regulations and are simply trying to distance themselves with boiler plate.
olefoo 16y ago
So will we soon see a co-evolutionary arms race as ever stealthier drones are harassed, blocked or outright disabled by ever more aggressive counter measures? I could see the paparazzi style flying eyes being dealt with by LIDAR countermeasures. The tracking drones are already vulnerable to a number of the same tactics that involve shaking a tail of any sort. I foresee some exciting new precedents getting set from this conflict though.
- lsc 16y ago
  I think this would bring up some interesting legal issues. I mean, obviously sending up ground to air missiles is likely going to be illegal just due to safety issues. But what if I, say, set up a drone that tangles up your drone in a net of some kind? something no more unsafe than the drone crashing due to problems? What if I only use this on drones flying low over my own property?
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    I'm going to find out. If people are flying free hardware over my property, then by golly, finders keepers.
    - noonespecial 16y ago
      It'll be like fishing, but with kites! Set up a couple of kites with nice long strings, wait for drone to entangle in string, reel it in! Free servos for me.
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        Like fishing, with kites. I keep giggling about this.
    - lsc 16y ago
      I think the legal issue could go either way. If it is some private entity spying on me on my own property, I don't think any jury would convict me of knocking it down, and maybe even keeping the parts. Clearly, if the interloper was doing something illegal, they might choose to abandon the property and pretend it didn't belong to them, you know, in hope it would make it difficult for me to press charges against the offending party. If it was a government drone, though, I'd be in a bit more trouble. Now, if private usage of drones for celebrity spying etc... is common before the government starts using them to spy on US citizens, precedent could be established; but if not, well, I bet it'd turn out at best like that kid who posted photos on the internet of the clumsy car-tracking device that the feds stuck on his car, which is to say, the FBI comes and takes it back and maybe doesn't arrest you. I mean, the kid didn't break the thing, and that might make a difference. Government drones are not going to be cheap, and, I mean, someone might forget about a hacked-together $300 drone, but if it's three million? Yeah, secret technology aside, I think they are going to want their toy back.
ryanwaggoner 16y ago
Several efforts to develop personal drones are scheduled for completion in the next year. If only scheduling innovation was so easy...
rsheridan6 16y ago
Could these be used for last mile transportation? As a way to deliver a letter, or perhaps even a pizza, at least during nice weather?
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  I don't see why not, but there'd be a payload weight limit, and if popularity increased, you'd need some kind of routing system to keep bots from colliding.
  - asynchronous13 16y ago
    You are correct that these issues need to be addressed, the FAA already has a system in place to prevent aerial collisions of commercial and private planes. I'm sure the existing regulations can be modified to be more suitable for uavs and city-scale flight patterns. For example, stay at odd-hundred elevation for north and east travel and stay at even-hundred for south and west travel.
- Devilboy 16y ago
  Probably not anytime soon. The technology is there but it's going to be almost impossible to clear the legal hurdles. Currently you can fly these things as a hobby but you have to be within visual range at all times and there's all sorts of problems when flying near people or buildings. We can't even get robotic vehicles on the roads yet, it's going to be a long time before we see them flying though our suburbs.
  - netcan 16y ago
    A robotic car is big and heavy. A robotic pizza delivery blimp might be relatively harmless even if it falls on your head, especially if it stays just above pizza snatching height.
    - Devilboy 16y ago
      Why is a robotic car big and heavy? Surely you'll be delivering pizza via Segway-bots long before you use stuff that flies through the air!
modeless 16y ago
Have you heard the noise these things make? They're about as "stealth" as lawnmowers.
- pjscott 16y ago
  You could make reasonably-sized miniature zeppelin drones, which can be made quiet and stealthy, but I'm not sure how maneuverable they'd be in a stiff breeze.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- asynchronous13 16y ago
  My startup makes small (2.5lbs) electric helicopter uavs. At 50ft you can't hear them any more. If you are inside your car, I could position the heli within 5-10ft of you before you might even notice.
  - edave 16y ago
    What's your startup?
tomjen3 16y ago
What scares me the most is the possibility that they can be used for assassinations; at present drones are not fast enough, manuveable enough or stealthy enough, but thats a technical limitation that isn't likely to last for that long. The main fear with this is that those who are going to be protecting other people are very unlikely to see this coming, nor to be especially prepared for it. The secret service (who are not the only ones who do protection, or even the main ones, but no doubt the best) are really good at closing of every attack route that they know of, but even so it is widely known that it is impossible or nearly so to stop an assassin who is willing to give up his own life. With this technology, this may become true of any person who can get an internet connection (until drones become able to navigate autonomously) and is willing to sacrifice a drone -- which is going to be a larger number of people that those who are willing go sacrifice their life. I sincerely hope I am wrong, because I wouldn't like the kind of society that would have to be created to prevent somebody from doing this, nor the kind of surveillance methods that would be required to prevent somebody from building a drone (if your are going to kill people, you don't care if building a drone is technically illegal).
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  The main fear with this is that those who are going to be protecting other people are very unlikely to see this coming, nor to be especially prepared for it. Why, you think working in security means not reading a newspaper? I rather suspect that the people with the high-stakes jobs hold them because they are actually proactive rather than the sort of people who stand around waiting for something to happen.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    No, I don't think that applies to people working in security. But I know that it applies to a large number of people working in the government.
- Devilboy 16y ago
  The US military has these already. Quiet, small and carrying an explosive charge designed to kill one human target. http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/micro-uav-assassination-robot-completed.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/micro-uav-assassination-rob...
huhtenberg 16y ago
I would get one to fly ahead of me when I'm driving and monitor for the road work and traffic congestion. That's until the car native navigation is finally capable of collecting this information on its own. And I want a touch screen with pinch zoom on that damn antiquated piece of hardware already. And a satellite imagery! :)
Loic 16y ago
What scares me the most is not the military use, it this one: > But the real prize may be in civilian applications. "The military stuff is kind of passe," Ms. Cummings said. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist from MIT to tell you if we can do it for a soldier in the field, we can do it for anybody." As a parent of a 3-year-old, she said, she could use the same technology to track her daughter on her way to school (she would need to plant an electronic bug in her lunch box or backpack). That would "bring a whole new meaning to a hover parent," she said. Schools could even use drones for perimeter control. I don't want my kids to be controlled by drones, I don't want kids to be looked behind on their way to school like animals. If you don't give a bit of freedom to your kids, if you are always on their back, they will never mature and reach adulthood. They will never have the feeling of freedom they need to develop themselves and be great creators, scientists, whatever. They will be sheep controlled by the sheepdog of the moment.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
DjDarkman 16y ago
If I would want to spy on my <wife, child, whatever> I would simply write a GPS logger application and plant in on his/her Android/iPhone/whatever, I think that would be more practical and cost effective, still I can't take photos with that, so I guess this would be nice too.

43 points by cwan 16y ago

After viewing the video of the MIT lab using the AR Drone I'm confused... From the Development License of the SDK Drone API (Article 5 v): "AR.Drone, shall have for sole purpose to be used by a User for entertaining, game, leisure or training. The creation of applications for the use of the PARROT Drone for military, and, without limitation, security, watching, spying, defence, cartography is strictly forbidden."

ceejayoz 16y ago
"This is for entertainment purposes only" is how manufacturers cover their asses from liability lawsuits when someone uses their product illegally.
joe_the_user 16y ago
If a machine gun with an SDK was currently sold, I would imagine it would include the following conditions; "Machine gun shall have for its sole purpose training, sport and 'making a loud, satisfying noise'. Use for military purposes or for turning snitches and rival mafia dons into bloody swiss cheese is strictly forbidden"
Vivtek 16y ago
Radar detectors are sold under the same sort of disclaimer that they're never, ever, ever to be used to circumvent speed limit laws. It's safe to say we can all roll our eyes at this boilerplate.
edave 16y ago
They have the AR.Drone for comparison and entertainment, it's not considered a serious piece of equipment at all. The drone they're actually doing research on is a Ascending Technologies Hummingbird
asynchronous13 16y ago
As others noted, this is largely a CYA clause. I suspect the real reason is because UAVs are a legal grey area as far as the FAA regulations are concerned. It is generally accepted that regulations for R/C aircraft also apply to UAVs. The tricky point is that the FAA regs specifically state "for recreation". So you can legally fly an R/C plane and take aerial photos as a hobby. However, if you sell those photos then now you've broken the law. (R/C clubs recommend selling one ground photo and giving away the aerial ones to skirt the issue). The AR.Parrot folks know the regulations and are simply trying to distance themselves with boiler plate.

olefoo 16y ago

So will we soon see a co-evolutionary arms race as ever stealthier drones are harassed, blocked or outright disabled by ever more aggressive counter measures? I could see the paparazzi style flying eyes being dealt with by LIDAR countermeasures. The tracking drones are already vulnerable to a number of the same tactics that involve shaking a tail of any sort. I foresee some exciting new precedents getting set from this conflict though.

lsc 16y ago
I think this would bring up some interesting legal issues. I mean, obviously sending up ground to air missiles is likely going to be illegal just due to safety issues. But what if I, say, set up a drone that tangles up your drone in a net of some kind? something no more unsafe than the drone crashing due to problems? What if I only use this on drones flying low over my own property?
- Vivtek 16y ago
  I'm going to find out. If people are flying free hardware over my property, then by golly, finders keepers.
  - noonespecial 16y ago
    It'll be like fishing, but with kites! Set up a couple of kites with nice long strings, wait for drone to entangle in string, reel it in! Free servos for me.
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      Like fishing, with kites. I keep giggling about this.
  - lsc 16y ago
    I think the legal issue could go either way. If it is some private entity spying on me on my own property, I don't think any jury would convict me of knocking it down, and maybe even keeping the parts. Clearly, if the interloper was doing something illegal, they might choose to abandon the property and pretend it didn't belong to them, you know, in hope it would make it difficult for me to press charges against the offending party. If it was a government drone, though, I'd be in a bit more trouble. Now, if private usage of drones for celebrity spying etc... is common before the government starts using them to spy on US citizens, precedent could be established; but if not, well, I bet it'd turn out at best like that kid who posted photos on the internet of the clumsy car-tracking device that the feds stuck on his car, which is to say, the FBI comes and takes it back and maybe doesn't arrest you. I mean, the kid didn't break the thing, and that might make a difference. Government drones are not going to be cheap, and, I mean, someone might forget about a hacked-together $300 drone, but if it's three million? Yeah, secret technology aside, I think they are going to want their toy back.

ryanwaggoner 16y ago

Several efforts to develop personal drones are scheduled for completion in the next year. If only scheduling innovation was so easy...

rsheridan6 16y ago

Could these be used for last mile transportation? As a way to deliver a letter, or perhaps even a pizza, at least during nice weather?

sliverstorm 16y ago
I don't see why not, but there'd be a payload weight limit, and if popularity increased, you'd need some kind of routing system to keep bots from colliding.
- asynchronous13 16y ago
  You are correct that these issues need to be addressed, the FAA already has a system in place to prevent aerial collisions of commercial and private planes. I'm sure the existing regulations can be modified to be more suitable for uavs and city-scale flight patterns. For example, stay at odd-hundred elevation for north and east travel and stay at even-hundred for south and west travel.
Devilboy 16y ago
Probably not anytime soon. The technology is there but it's going to be almost impossible to clear the legal hurdles. Currently you can fly these things as a hobby but you have to be within visual range at all times and there's all sorts of problems when flying near people or buildings. We can't even get robotic vehicles on the roads yet, it's going to be a long time before we see them flying though our suburbs.
- netcan 16y ago
  A robotic car is big and heavy. A robotic pizza delivery blimp might be relatively harmless even if it falls on your head, especially if it stays just above pizza snatching height.
  - Devilboy 16y ago
    Why is a robotic car big and heavy? Surely you'll be delivering pizza via Segway-bots long before you use stuff that flies through the air!

modeless 16y ago

Have you heard the noise these things make? They're about as "stealth" as lawnmowers.

pjscott 16y ago
You could make reasonably-sized miniature zeppelin drones, which can be made quiet and stealthy, but I'm not sure how maneuverable they'd be in a stiff breeze.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
asynchronous13 16y ago
My startup makes small (2.5lbs) electric helicopter uavs. At 50ft you can't hear them any more. If you are inside your car, I could position the heli within 5-10ft of you before you might even notice.
- edave 16y ago
  What's your startup?

tomjen3 16y ago

What scares me the most is the possibility that they can be used for assassinations; at present drones are not fast enough, manuveable enough or stealthy enough, but thats a technical limitation that isn't likely to last for that long. The main fear with this is that those who are going to be protecting other people are very unlikely to see this coming, nor to be especially prepared for it. The secret service (who are not the only ones who do protection, or even the main ones, but no doubt the best) are really good at closing of every attack route that they know of, but even so it is widely known that it is impossible or nearly so to stop an assassin who is willing to give up his own life. With this technology, this may become true of any person who can get an internet connection (until drones become able to navigate autonomously) and is willing to sacrifice a drone -- which is going to be a larger number of people that those who are willing go sacrifice their life. I sincerely hope I am wrong, because I wouldn't like the kind of society that would have to be created to prevent somebody from doing this, nor the kind of surveillance methods that would be required to prevent somebody from building a drone (if your are going to kill people, you don't care if building a drone is technically illegal).

anigbrowl 16y ago
The main fear with this is that those who are going to be protecting other people are very unlikely to see this coming, nor to be especially prepared for it. Why, you think working in security means not reading a newspaper? I rather suspect that the people with the high-stakes jobs hold them because they are actually proactive rather than the sort of people who stand around waiting for something to happen.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  No, I don't think that applies to people working in security. But I know that it applies to a large number of people working in the government.
Devilboy 16y ago
The US military has these already. Quiet, small and carrying an explosive charge designed to kill one human target. http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/micro-uav-assassination-robot-completed.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/micro-uav-assassination-rob...

huhtenberg 16y ago

I would get one to fly ahead of me when I'm driving and monitor for the road work and traffic congestion. That's until the car native navigation is finally capable of collecting this information on its own. And I want a touch screen with pinch zoom on that damn antiquated piece of hardware already. And a satellite imagery! :)

Loic 16y ago

What scares me the most is not the military use, it this one: > But the real prize may be in civilian applications. "The military stuff is kind of passe," Ms. Cummings said. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist from MIT to tell you if we can do it for a soldier in the field, we can do it for anybody." As a parent of a 3-year-old, she said, she could use the same technology to track her daughter on her way to school (she would need to plant an electronic bug in her lunch box or backpack). That would "bring a whole new meaning to a hover parent," she said. Schools could even use drones for perimeter control. I don't want my kids to be controlled by drones, I don't want kids to be looked behind on their way to school like animals. If you don't give a bit of freedom to your kids, if you are always on their back, they will never mature and reach adulthood. They will never have the feeling of freedom they need to develop themselves and be great creators, scientists, whatever. They will be sheep controlled by the sheepdog of the moment.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

DjDarkman 16y ago

If I would want to spy on my <wife, child, whatever> I would simply write a GPS logger application and plant in on his/her Android/iPhone/whatever, I think that would be more practical and cost effective, still I can't take photos with that, so I guess this would be nice too.