26 ms·
How to Hide from a Drone
- jonas21 6y ago"Stand over broken glass"? "Keep an umbrella handy"? Really?
- nextaccountic 6y agoThe umbrella tip seems to have been adopted in Hong Kong.
- jacobwilliamroy 6y agoSoon the government will pass legislation making opaque umbrellas illegal.
- milquetoastaf 6y agoThere's also this great sci fi flick Empty Metal[0] where they hide their identities from drones using umbrellas [0] https://letterboxd.com/film/empty-metal/ https://letterboxd.com/film/empty-metal/
- m463 6y agoIs it either clickbait-level advice or snowden-level advice? :)
- tomohawk 6y agoHere's a video of some rioters using umbrellas as cover to mask their approach and launch an attack on police. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1VdhQbfSTY&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1VdhQbfSTY&feature=youtu.be Seems pretty effective on the ground, but the drone footage shows what they're actually up to.
- robocat 6y agoStart at 2:30 - very interesting - although perhaps mostly to do with ground surveillance?
- 01100011 6y agoI don't know if it would be effective at hiding you beyond the next few years when more comprehensive systems are in place, but I think a simple circuit that randomly blinks an IR LED would be handy. Something like an an LED throwie, but with random cycling. Put a bunch of them around and you'll probably screw up most cheap CCDs by forcing them to constantly adjust their exposure. Sure, a cheap filter can defeat them... But eventually we'll be in a world where there is no escape from integrated surveillance and jamming/hiding just raises flags.
- ezconnect 6y agoI also thought of this and how do military hide from satellites. Do they use powerful lasers to saturate photon sensors. Since military satellites have existed for so long now military probably implemented a way to hide from them.
- XMPPwocky 6y agoCeilings, and (knowing when satellites are passing overhead) when things need to be under ceilings.
- londons_explore 6y agoI assume that most militaries have satellites with radars that can penetrate most ceilings to see planes in hangars etc. Most militaries also have access to some high orbit satellites that have 24x7 coverage of an area, and then some low orbit satellites which fly overhead every few hours and can grab high res shots. The combination makes it very hard to sneak a secret plane from one building to another between orbits, since the 24/7 coverage will see it (albeit at lower res).
- dylan604 6y agoThere are materials and building techniques that do not allow radar signals to reflect cleanly which severely weakens the radar image. It just so happens the military is pretty aware of this. If the military wanted to hide from a radar scan, they would have the know how, the means, and the desire to do it.
- bigprof 6y agoIn some places of the world, hiding from drones could be a matter of life and death. But if someone uses techniques for evading drones, and other people around are not, couldn't he be alerting the drone that he might be a potential target?
- jacobwilliamroy 6y agoFor reference here is footage from an apache gun killing a civilian reporter in Baghdad in 2007: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACollateralMurder.ogv https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AColla... So I'm fairly certain this is what most drone operators will see on the screen. This video is over 13 years old though, so current optics are probably much more advanced than what was deployed in iraq. Near-future drones can also probably use 5G networks to transmit higher resolution videos. I don't think anyone can hide from this, even if they don't have anything to hide. False positives seem extremely likely and if the domestic drones won't shoot, they still will very likely be reporting a lot of crimes and violations that didn't actually happen. The guy in the video who the operators claimed was carrying an AK-47 that was also an RPG, was actually a reporter carrying a camera and laptop.
- squarefoot 6y agoThat video was taken from far distance because the drone had to operate unnoticed in enemy territory; pretty sure that they had much better optics and transmission capabilities even back then, but it had to be very far from action. The distance can be roughly measured, if the bullets speed is known, by counting the time between the shots audio (assuming it's properly synced) and when they're seen hitting the area. Today police drones could look at your backyard from a few dozen meters, and the same qualified immunity that let them execute people in the streets would prevent you to do anything against them; those drones wouldn't even need to hide themselves. ps. Upvoted because I noticed you were downvoted, probably by a flesh drone programmed to quench any reference to Wikileaks and the Assange cause, without whom that video would never become public.
- bbarnett 6y agoOne thing which bothers me is satellite imagery. In the 80s, 30+ years ago, license plates were discernible from orbit. I often wonder, what if you had two distinct lenses, each with separate transmit? EG, both operating at once. Or multiple lenses? Now you could do things, potentially, such as use a high-fidelity lens to tag individuals. EG, license plates. Facial recognition. That sort of thing. Once tagged, another lens, one which records the entire surface of the continental US, would track objects the size of vehicles, or even people. Determining who or what each was, would not be vital. Only high probability tracking, and those other lenses coming into play for closer viewing, to tag. Now you're just tracking dots as they move. And once someone is tagged (phone, or license plate), they don't need to be retagged. If not already being done, it won't be long until it is done. And once tagged, you'd never shake that tag easily. We're all familiar with facial recognition tech used by SV giants, and we know of many things, such as gait recognition used in China. Yet what amount of tagging, facial recognition could be done, when budget was of absolutely zero concern. If computing power was of zero concern. All you need at the images from the satellite. Ground based computing power can do the rest. What if you had trillions in computing power to throw at this? Well. Regardless. If it isn't a problem now, it will be a problem eventually.
- thallium205 6y agoHow would you even know if a drone is in the sky? Many can operate very high in the air that would never be detected.
- jlg23 6y agoIf one has to be worried about drones, one should expect them to be there at any time.
- noodlesUK 6y agoWhilst I’m sure there are opsec protocols that can do something to protect you from modern (military style) drones, it’s very very very hard to stop an adversary with a nearly unlimited amount of money and incredible technological superiority from keeping their eyes on you once you’re in their sights.
- alacombe 6y agoYet, the US has pretty much been kept at bay from Irak and Afghanistan, go figure... In general, the US army is not equipped for guerilla-style warfare, and especially not on US soil. Local PD are another story on this point, but far less equipped.
- 082349872349872 6y agoIn general, maybe. Here's a specific case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757
- ashtonkem 6y agoOn one hand it’s clear that a guérilla campaign is fully capable of resisting a first class army for a long period of time; this has been clear since the 1970s. What people tend to ignore is that the defenders do this while sustaining much higher casualties. Oh, and civilian casualties are typically an order of magnitude higher because high explosives aren’t very discriminatory. On one hand, that’s an interesting discussion about modern warfare. On the other it is not a convincing argument about how you shouldn’t be too worried about the US military, because while a guérilla campaign might be able to stop them, it would only work after getting hundreds of thousands of people killed in your country. Not exactly a comforting argument.
- londons_explore 6y agoI prefer my politicians to bow down to US demands and not start a war in the first place.
- 6y ago
- intc 6y ago> It’s smart to avoid using wireless devices like mobile phones or GPS systems, since they have digital signatures... Could someone explain how a GPS receiver (especially one which doesn't utilize DGPS of any sorts) would have any sort of digital signature which could be measured from a drone?
- alquemist 6y agoFrom Garmin website, first category (wearables), first item: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/702902#specs https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/702902#specs: CONNECTIVITY Bluetooth®, ANT+®, Wi-Fi®. From Garmin website, featured items: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/711488 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/711488: CONNECTIVITY Bluetooth® https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/707174/pn/010-02427-02 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/707174/pn/010-02427-02: CONNECTIVITY Bluetooth®, ANT+® https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/713363 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/713363: CONNECTIVITY Bluetooth®, ANT+®, Wi-Fi® Older school hiking GPS: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/699779 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/699779: WIRELESS CONNECTIVITY yes (Wi-Fi®, BLUETOOTH®, ANT+®) The weighting scale apparently has no wifi, so that's drone safe. Though not quite portable.
- jdc 6y agoDetection and Localization of Multiple R/C Electronic Devices Using Array Detectors[1] Locating Noncooperative Radio Receivers Using Wideband Stimulated Emissions[2] A Practical Superheterodyne-Receiver Detector Using Stimulated Emissions[3] 1. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6857348 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6857348 2. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6329437 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6329437 3. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5699393 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5699393
- willvarfar 6y agoThe book Spycatcher details how, in the 50s, MI5 developed systems to detect radio receivers. They fitted out vans and drove past embassies to determine the frequencies different embassies were tuned into. I think they also tested with fitting out aircraft, but it’s a long time since I read the book. Of course there is also the opinion that tv detector vans were a hoax and would never work, so ymmv :)
- trhway 6y agosome people are already living that future. Good description of a population dealing with the drone threat on a daily basis : https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-10-15/drones-complicates-war-armenia-azerbaijan-nagorno-karabakh https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-10-15/drones... "With the threat of drones omnipresent, officials, army personnel and even civilians have had to alter habits. In Martuni (which Azerbaijanis call Khojavend), Avanesyan, the mayor, eschews what he considers a less secure but more modern smartphone in favor of a primitive Nokia, which would reveal less information to an adversary. Similarly, soldiers near the front line are proscribed from using GPS or taking any photos with their phones. Drivers tape up headlights or smear mud on their cars to obscure any markings that could make them a target. Gatherings are discouraged, with people urged not to spend too much time in one place and to designate an emergency shelter."
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- aiyodev 6y agoMissing from this conversation is the use of drones as weapons. We’re used to thinking of drones as tools of government surveillance. But ISIS and Iranian backed groups have been using off-the-shelf drones with 3d printed parts to make airborne IEDs. It’s not hard to imagine white supremacist militia groups using them in the United States to carry out terrorist attacks.
- babkayaga 6y ago>It’s smart to avoid using wireless devices like mobile phones or GPS systems Is this a thing? Thought a GPS system is passive ...
- JoeAltmaier 6y agotl;dr: carry an umbrella
- motohagiography 6y agoThe idea that we all live as future fugitives now seems like something worth changing. If your plan is to hide, does it really matter how well? The best way to defeat drones is to engage in culture and policy making, and to vote. The next best way is to use RF to triangulate their C2 location and either jam it or destroy it. "Hide." Kids today, no valour.
- fake-name 6y ago> The next best way is to use RF to triangulate their C2 location and either jam it or destroy it. That doesn't do jack when the drone is autonomous.
- hamiltonkibbe 6y agoIf it's autonomous you can skip the triangulation step. The drone and C2 are co-located.
- motohagiography 6y agoAgreed. Autonomous just means free range spare parts.
- 0xdeadb00f 6y agoI have no faith in what my vote can do in regards to things like this. Paying attention doesn't do much. If the government wants to pass something, especially in the name of national security, it will get passed.
- uselesscynicism 6y agoThen what? If you can't vote to get the change that you want, what's the alternative? Violent revolution and hoping that the new boss is better than the old boss? I'm so tired of this kind of useless cynicism. Voting matters, especially at the local level. You can get involved in your party at local levels, too. How do you think all these politicians get into the political class to begin with, in free societies? Or should we overthrow our democratically elected government, because you believe cynically there's no point in voting, they're going to do whatever they want anyway, and install a dictatorship or Party and hope that we get a benevolent one? Or are you suggesting that the Socialist Utopia is right around the bend, if we all just give up on voting and... I don't know, what's the point of your comment?
- Tepix 6y agoIf enough people were to use identically looking umbrellas it would be very hard indeed to track individuals passing below bridges and roofs. In Tokyo there is already a prevalent style for umbrellas: The transparent model you can see in the 1982 cult film Blade Runner.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- x87678r 6y agoWhat about those clouds of swarm drones? The future is scary. American https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW77hVqux10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW77hVqux10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsKbGc9TUHc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsKbGc9TUHc Chinese https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QamGaDNczJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QamGaDNczJw
- prepend 6y agoI think a better approach for these asymmetrical power scenarios is to come up with ways to very cheaply and anonymously destroy drones. The approaches in this article seem like they would be quickly developed around. The visual cues only work temporarily until the software gets retrained and it’s dangerous to test if the drones are using updates to defeat the anti-AI t-shirts and whatnot. Drones are pretty expensive (few thousand). So if they can be destroyed for $1, that’s probably the only way to really stop them. Slingshots and shotguns are probably too easy to use and get away with it. But maybe some cheap drone, autonomous, that just flies into the expensive drones and crashes them.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y agoWhere I live slingshots with armrests are forbidden(now). If you are cought with one it's a violation of current weapons laws, and you'll get fined and a record. Funny thing is, crossbows and bows in general are not :) Maybe because they are larger and difficult to carry concealed. Had much fun with a slingshot(without arm rest) as a kid, using steel balls out of old ball bearings and glass marbles at distances up to about 50 meters with very surprising results against brick and concrete walls. Made large parts of them simply chip off, or deep dents into trash bins, traffic signs, and similar things.