Drone Takeoffs Limited by No-Fly Software
February 6, 2015 12:05 PM Subscribe
This article, about a software rollback, explains that drone maker DJI can use software updates to limit the places where drones can take off.
The White House geofence is only the second one that isn’t centered on an airport ... the first was Tiananmen Square.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:38 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:38 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Private security guards spout lots of nonsense. If you're on public property, I'd feel really free to ignore them.
I'm pretty comfortable with all sorts of restrictions on drones above a certain weight (1 pound? 2 pounds?). Maybe have 'drone parks' like we have dog parks where everyone is aware that idiots who are incompetent are piloting things swarming above their heads. Truth is things that weigh several pounds hurling towards you in the air can really hurt you.
If I was a property owner I'd certainly want to make my property free from drone traffic. Furthermore if you crash your drone onto my property, finders keepers.
My first drone is in the mail (no camera, it weighs less than a half a pound).
posted by el io at 12:45 PM on February 6, 2015
I'm pretty comfortable with all sorts of restrictions on drones above a certain weight (1 pound? 2 pounds?). Maybe have 'drone parks' like we have dog parks where everyone is aware that idiots who are incompetent are piloting things swarming above their heads. Truth is things that weigh several pounds hurling towards you in the air can really hurt you.
If I was a property owner I'd certainly want to make my property free from drone traffic. Furthermore if you crash your drone onto my property, finders keepers.
My first drone is in the mail (no camera, it weighs less than a half a pound).
posted by el io at 12:45 PM on February 6, 2015
These things work indoors where there's no GPS, right? So surely you can just pull the plug on the GPS antenna, or wrap it in tinfoil?
posted by grahamparks at 12:53 PM on February 6, 2015
posted by grahamparks at 12:53 PM on February 6, 2015
These things work indoors where there's no GPS, right? So surely you can just pull the plug on the GPS antenna, or wrap it in tinfoil?
Yes, you *can* fly some drones without GPS, but you have to do the piloting yourself. If you're using them for, like, cinematography or photography, by yourself (i.e. operating both the camera and the drone) then not using GPS is harder than using GPS. There are also very nice features like "when you get low on battery, return home and land" or "maintain your position and altitude until I say otherwise, even if it's windy"
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:56 PM on February 6, 2015
Yes, you *can* fly some drones without GPS, but you have to do the piloting yourself. If you're using them for, like, cinematography or photography, by yourself (i.e. operating both the camera and the drone) then not using GPS is harder than using GPS. There are also very nice features like "when you get low on battery, return home and land" or "maintain your position and altitude until I say otherwise, even if it's windy"
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:56 PM on February 6, 2015
So what would it take for a celebrity to get their house on such a list, to get a smidgen of privacy from drone-wielding paparazzi? (OK, manual piloting gets around that.)
How long before someone reverse engineers the software to get around this, or add other capabilities? I'm thinking along the lines of DD-WRT or Tomato for routers.
posted by a person of few words at 1:06 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
How long before someone reverse engineers the software to get around this, or add other capabilities? I'm thinking along the lines of DD-WRT or Tomato for routers.
posted by a person of few words at 1:06 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
ne reverse engineers the software to get around this, or add other capabilities? I'm thinking along the lines of DD-WRT or Tomato for routers.
If this isn't illegal in a few years I'll be fucking shocked.
Not that it'll stop anyone, but I still see it becoming more illegal than say, cracking dvd protection. Maybe even more than using heating oil in a diesel vehicle. Like, providing alcohol to minors levels of illegal.
Then again, I also see some kind of pilot licensing system coming.
posted by emptythought at 1:21 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
If this isn't illegal in a few years I'll be fucking shocked.
Not that it'll stop anyone, but I still see it becoming more illegal than say, cracking dvd protection. Maybe even more than using heating oil in a diesel vehicle. Like, providing alcohol to minors levels of illegal.
Then again, I also see some kind of pilot licensing system coming.
posted by emptythought at 1:21 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Not just where they take off, but how high they can fly, all sort of things.
As long as we have both idiots and airports, this has to be the way things are, as far as I can see.
posted by bonehead at 1:22 PM on February 6, 2015
As long as we have both idiots and airports, this has to be the way things are, as far as I can see.
posted by bonehead at 1:22 PM on February 6, 2015
There's open source drone-control hardware and software. I doubt there will ever be effective mandatory geofencing for it, and it will probably become more popular if the proprietary software becomes too restricted.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 1:40 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by cosmic.osmo at 1:40 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's a lot of room for software to help enable safe flying, but this looks more like a desperate move by a company that's worried about bad press and restrictive legislation. It's not mandatory, but it does seem that if you ever want to update your firmware again you'll have to live with the possibility that your drone won't be able to fly in areas where DJI thinks you shouldn't fly it, which includes Tiananmen Square. Imagine a future update that requires your drone to download the latest no-fly zones before it will take off, and imagine journalists or protestors being prevented from flying their DJI drone, in a safe way, within 15 miles of Ferguson, MO.
How long before someone reverse engineers the software to get around this, or add other capabilities?
Already done: https://twitter.com/DIYDroneSafety/status/563092313069879299
The EFF's take: "Who really owns your drones?"
posted by jjwiseman at 1:45 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
How long before someone reverse engineers the software to get around this, or add other capabilities?
Already done: https://twitter.com/DIYDroneSafety/status/563092313069879299
The EFF's take: "Who really owns your drones?"
posted by jjwiseman at 1:45 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
The rule (Wikipedia summary and detailed PDF) that is cited for the "drone ban" around the White House says nobody can fly a "model aircraft" with the DC Flight Restricted Zone, which is pretty much everything within a 15 mile radius of DCA. Someone flying a quadcopter in town got a talking-to by the FAA over it. It's a shitty rule since even indoor operations are illegal, and there is no lower limit on size. What about paper airplanes?
Related, check out the DRMed coffee brewer thread. I wonder if DJI is going to see the same sort of sales impact seen by Keurig, as potential buyers avoid them so they aren't hobbled by unilateral acts of the company.
posted by exogenous at 1:52 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Related, check out the DRMed coffee brewer thread. I wonder if DJI is going to see the same sort of sales impact seen by Keurig, as potential buyers avoid them so they aren't hobbled by unilateral acts of the company.
posted by exogenous at 1:52 PM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are also already reports of the new firmware glitching and causing forced, uncontrolled landings in locations that are not near a known no-fly zone: https://vimeo.com/97812739
And I love how DJI frames this feature in the same way we're used to hearing that DRM is really all about improving the consumer experience; DJI is "empowering" you by including these mandatory no-fly zones in the new firmware: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vimM1nnzljo
I actually think that open databases of restricted flight areas are a great idea, and just the beginning of what data-empowered drones can do for safety, but you need to be able to turn the restrictions off. There really are a lot of parallels with DRM--imagine DJI goes out of business after which the airport near your home closes, etc.
posted by jjwiseman at 1:55 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
And I love how DJI frames this feature in the same way we're used to hearing that DRM is really all about improving the consumer experience; DJI is "empowering" you by including these mandatory no-fly zones in the new firmware: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vimM1nnzljo
I actually think that open databases of restricted flight areas are a great idea, and just the beginning of what data-empowered drones can do for safety, but you need to be able to turn the restrictions off. There really are a lot of parallels with DRM--imagine DJI goes out of business after which the airport near your home closes, etc.
posted by jjwiseman at 1:55 PM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
If this isn't illegal in a few years I'll be fucking shocked.
I think it would probably already be illegal under the DMCA to reverse engineer it. There are a couple of exemptions to reverse engineering in the DMCA, but they are only carved out for wireless phones or 'dongles' that are not longer working. There is a broad exemption for 'reverse engineering to achieve interoperability of computer programs', but I don't think you could make an argument for interoperability in this case.
The only reason things like DD-WRT and Tomato exist is because Linksys violated the GPL and was basically forced to open source their firmware.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 2:19 PM on February 6, 2015
I think it would probably already be illegal under the DMCA to reverse engineer it. There are a couple of exemptions to reverse engineering in the DMCA, but they are only carved out for wireless phones or 'dongles' that are not longer working. There is a broad exemption for 'reverse engineering to achieve interoperability of computer programs', but I don't think you could make an argument for interoperability in this case.
The only reason things like DD-WRT and Tomato exist is because Linksys violated the GPL and was basically forced to open source their firmware.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 2:19 PM on February 6, 2015
I'm ok with firmware that is meant to prevent the most overt of dumb actions, like sending a drone through a busy airport. Everyone knows that a creative terrorist could hack that, but at least you will be preventing your average teenager or hobbyist from doing something destructive by accident.
The ridiculous part will come when they start adding more and more places to the no-fly list: Dick Cheney's summer house, any corporate headquarters with a good lobbyist...
posted by Dip Flash at 2:46 PM on February 6, 2015
The ridiculous part will come when they start adding more and more places to the no-fly list: Dick Cheney's summer house, any corporate headquarters with a good lobbyist...
posted by Dip Flash at 2:46 PM on February 6, 2015
I think it would probably already be illegal under the DMCA to reverse engineer it. There are a couple of exemptions to reverse engineering in the DMCA, but they are only carved out for wireless phones or 'dongles' that are not longer working. There is a broad exemption for 'reverse engineering to achieve interoperability of computer programs', but I don't think you could make an argument for interoperability in this case.You don't need to reverse engineer it. Open source Drone controller software is available.
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 2:56 PM on February 6, 2015
How long before someone reverse engineers the software to get around this, or add other capabilities? I'm thinking along the lines of DD-WRT or Tomato for routers.
as someone who owns a Parrot AR drone, its already hilariously easy. once i connect to it with wifi i can telnet in as root with no credentials. it runs busybox on an ARM processor.
posted by Mach5 at 3:00 PM on February 6, 2015
as someone who owns a Parrot AR drone, its already hilariously easy. once i connect to it with wifi i can telnet in as root with no credentials. it runs busybox on an ARM processor.
posted by Mach5 at 3:00 PM on February 6, 2015
There are many open source drone firmwares. Here are a few of the more popular or interesting ones:
It's good that these alternatives exist, and hopefully their existence will put pressure on commercial drone companies to keep their systems relatively open because sometimes you just want to plug in an Airport and have it work without having to buy just the right model of Netgear and install Tomato (and I don't think it's too controversial to say that the open source firmwares are, currently, not as stable as the commercial firmwares--and with drones, bug-free software is pretty important).
posted by jjwiseman at 3:35 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
- ArduPilot/APM, probably the most popular--part of the Dronecode project by the Linux Foundation.
- GoDrone, an open source replacement for the AR.Drone firmware.
- OpenPilot
- PX4, also part of the Dronecode project by the Linux Foundation.
- Paparazzi
- SMACCMPilot, a DARPA-funded, highly secure open source drone firmware!
It's good that these alternatives exist, and hopefully their existence will put pressure on commercial drone companies to keep their systems relatively open because sometimes you just want to plug in an Airport and have it work without having to buy just the right model of Netgear and install Tomato (and I don't think it's too controversial to say that the open source firmwares are, currently, not as stable as the commercial firmwares--and with drones, bug-free software is pretty important).
posted by jjwiseman at 3:35 PM on February 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
And, as additional context, the FAA has been slowly & at times confusingly tightening the restrictions on small drones, and just missed the most recent, somewhat vague, deadline for issuing a new set of drone rules. New rules are expected soon, though, and while the FAA has been very cagey about what the new rules will be there are signs that at least for small drones they will be dramatically more restrictive than the current regime.
The FAA has tasked NASA with helping come up with new procedures and technologies for integrating drones into the National Airspace, and just a couple weeks ago there was a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on matters related to that integration (video includes drones flying around congresspeople).
It's not surprising that DJI may be trying to get ahead of restrictive legislation, or at the least try to make up for the bad press of being the drone of choice for unauthorized, drunken, White House lawn incursions (and there's a bit of a stereotype that DJI drones are more often flown by inexperienced people who do unsafe things, which is probably just due to the fact that they're the most popular ready-to-fly drone system).
posted by jjwiseman at 3:54 PM on February 6, 2015
The FAA has tasked NASA with helping come up with new procedures and technologies for integrating drones into the National Airspace, and just a couple weeks ago there was a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on matters related to that integration (video includes drones flying around congresspeople).
It's not surprising that DJI may be trying to get ahead of restrictive legislation, or at the least try to make up for the bad press of being the drone of choice for unauthorized, drunken, White House lawn incursions (and there's a bit of a stereotype that DJI drones are more often flown by inexperienced people who do unsafe things, which is probably just due to the fact that they're the most popular ready-to-fly drone system).
posted by jjwiseman at 3:54 PM on February 6, 2015
Do we need anti-drone devices? Microwave jammer guns? Fake GPS signals? Directional EMP poppers?
posted by tommyD at 4:48 PM on February 6, 2015
posted by tommyD at 4:48 PM on February 6, 2015
While this is somewhat analogous to DRM, it's also a rapidly expanding hobby/photography tool, for which the opportunity for abuse/dumb mistakes is high.
DJI is trying to self-regulate so that they don't get forced legislatively to do much worse. A genuine danger as jjwiseman points out. When you have drunk idiots landing their drones accidentally on the white house lawn.
Wired also published this today about the gov't fears (quite well founded fears methinks)
I have one of their products (the Inspire1) and it's an amazing tool, but not a toy at all.
And there is a lovely analog anti drone device tommyD. It flies above a detected drone and simply drops a ribbon into it.
Disclosure: I am in a business relationship with DJI, take my opinion with a grain of salt. I'm also stuck in an airport and haven't slept in awhile so forgive me if my making of my point be bad. Me tired.
posted by asavage at 4:55 PM on February 6, 2015 [9 favorites]
It seems weird to me that drones (and really all R/C aircraft) are not covered under a licensing scheme similar to ham radio.
Make people take a reasonably difficult test and you cut down on 90 percent of the shenanigans right off the bat.
Sure, ham radio has its share of problems, but they are much easier to deal with when everyone is working from a common set of rules.
You could even do graduated licensing similar to amateur licensing:
Level 1: Aircraft must be in sight
Level 2: Some autonomous operation permitted, size/range limits
Level 3: Fully autonomous operation, etc.
posted by madajb at 5:04 PM on February 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
Make people take a reasonably difficult test and you cut down on 90 percent of the shenanigans right off the bat.
Sure, ham radio has its share of problems, but they are much easier to deal with when everyone is working from a common set of rules.
You could even do graduated licensing similar to amateur licensing:
Level 1: Aircraft must be in sight
Level 2: Some autonomous operation permitted, size/range limits
Level 3: Fully autonomous operation, etc.
posted by madajb at 5:04 PM on February 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
asavage: The photo of a DJI Phantom with "3 pounds of mock explosive" strapped to it is a striking way to make a point, for sure. A device that even a clever pre-teen can learn to program to fly to a desired point, miles away. A device that the Secret Service may not have very good odds of stopping, as of this moment (I'm sure they're working on it, though). These are interesting times.
But as the Wired article points out, "Geofencing won’t prevent terrorism". It quotes some guy as saying “Right now there doesn’t exist any hacks to remove the geofencing or downgrade the firmware,” and within a couple hours of the article being published that was no longer true.
At least smarter firmware will be able to help with NAS integration, probably via features like sense-and-avoid, integrating with some form of UTM. and yes, flight restrictions.
posted by jjwiseman at 6:02 PM on February 6, 2015
But as the Wired article points out, "Geofencing won’t prevent terrorism". It quotes some guy as saying “Right now there doesn’t exist any hacks to remove the geofencing or downgrade the firmware,” and within a couple hours of the article being published that was no longer true.
At least smarter firmware will be able to help with NAS integration, probably via features like sense-and-avoid, integrating with some form of UTM. and yes, flight restrictions.
posted by jjwiseman at 6:02 PM on February 6, 2015
The mock explosives look scary but ... there are other ways to propel explosives, from what I understand. Rockets, mortars, hand-thrown grenades ... is there a compelling reason to believe quadcopters are that much more deadly? They can't fly through closed windows, for example. Shouldn't it be the explosives that are controlled and not the RC copters?
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:28 PM on February 6, 2015
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:28 PM on February 6, 2015
Both very good points. And I agree with both. Forgetting about the bomb argument for now, I am super anti-drm and copyright restrictions, but the digital fence of a no-fly zone seems pretty a reasonable way to deter casual idiocy to me.
Though I fully concede that it is likely a slippery slope. However easy that slope is to bypass.
posted by asavage at 6:52 PM on February 6, 2015
Though I fully concede that it is likely a slippery slope. However easy that slope is to bypass.
posted by asavage at 6:52 PM on February 6, 2015
I used to fly little electric RC airplanes in school yards (after school hours), in parks, and a few open spaces. Not any more!
Almost all of them now have "no RC aircraft" signs posted. And it's not legal in some suburbs anywhere in the city limits.
So how long before it's decided that a drone, any drone, is "an RC aircraft" and they are prohibited just about anywhere (except at the few private RC aircraft fields)?
posted by CrowGoat at 7:55 PM on February 6, 2015
Almost all of them now have "no RC aircraft" signs posted. And it's not legal in some suburbs anywhere in the city limits.
So how long before it's decided that a drone, any drone, is "an RC aircraft" and they are prohibited just about anywhere (except at the few private RC aircraft fields)?
posted by CrowGoat at 7:55 PM on February 6, 2015
Rockets, mortars, hand-thrown grenades ... is there a compelling reason to believe quadcopters are that much more deadly?
There would be some circumstances, especially in a built-up urban setting, where the maneuverability would be an advantage: you can't fire a rocket launcher around a corner, you can't hit something with a mortar unless you have a clear ballistic trajectory to it, and obviously a hand-thrown grenade has a relatively limited range.
That said, it seems to me that the, er, killer app of weaponized quadcopters would probably be mounting a gun on them, not explosives, though that would probably also be harder to do effectively with an off-the-shelf system.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 8:40 PM on February 6, 2015
There would be some circumstances, especially in a built-up urban setting, where the maneuverability would be an advantage: you can't fire a rocket launcher around a corner, you can't hit something with a mortar unless you have a clear ballistic trajectory to it, and obviously a hand-thrown grenade has a relatively limited range.
That said, it seems to me that the, er, killer app of weaponized quadcopters would probably be mounting a gun on them, not explosives, though that would probably also be harder to do effectively with an off-the-shelf system.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 8:40 PM on February 6, 2015
madajb: "It seems weird to me that drones (and really all R/C aircraft) are not covered under a licensing scheme similar to ham radio."
It's a lot easier to regulate someone who is transmitting their location every time they do something objectionable than something like an autonomous drone.
posted by Mitheral at 10:10 PM on February 6, 2015
It's a lot easier to regulate someone who is transmitting their location every time they do something objectionable than something like an autonomous drone.
posted by Mitheral at 10:10 PM on February 6, 2015
The FAA is really far behind on publishing reasonable drone rules. And their trial balloon for commercial drone piloting includes some unreasonable restrictions like requiring a licensed pilot at the controls. (I'm also not wild about requiring you maintain line of sight to the drone, although in a populated area the logic of that is pretty clear.)
Keeping drones from flying in controlled airspace makes sense to me. Particularly near airports with human beings in aircraft at risk. But geofencing software is fraught with peril. Also it becomes a civil rights issue; the idea that I can't fly a camera in all of Washington DC is just not acceptable.
In my opinion flight restrictions have always been a civil rights issue, but it used to be an infringement that only affected the very small club of private pilots and mostly just prevented folks from going out on a Sunday flight for fun. Restrictions like the Ferguson TFR preventing the media from reporting from helicopters are much more serious, and in a few years those kinds of restrictions are going to seem unreasonably onerous for unmanned aircraft operators.
posted by Nelson at 12:45 AM on February 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Keeping drones from flying in controlled airspace makes sense to me. Particularly near airports with human beings in aircraft at risk. But geofencing software is fraught with peril. Also it becomes a civil rights issue; the idea that I can't fly a camera in all of Washington DC is just not acceptable.
In my opinion flight restrictions have always been a civil rights issue, but it used to be an infringement that only affected the very small club of private pilots and mostly just prevented folks from going out on a Sunday flight for fun. Restrictions like the Ferguson TFR preventing the media from reporting from helicopters are much more serious, and in a few years those kinds of restrictions are going to seem unreasonably onerous for unmanned aircraft operators.
posted by Nelson at 12:45 AM on February 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I learned so many interesting things from this conversation. I hadn't know about the Tiananmen Square firmware update. Also, I hadn't known about the DRMed Keurig coffee pods.
posted by ShanShen at 5:18 AM on February 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ShanShen at 5:18 AM on February 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Aren't there restrictions on the capabilities of commercially available GPS chipsets (i.e., all chips not restricted to the US Military must, on a hardware level, refuse to operate when moving above a certain velocity, to make them useless in cruise missiles)? Are these enforced through patent licensing or national-security laws?
posted by acb at 7:17 AM on February 7, 2015
posted by acb at 7:17 AM on February 7, 2015
The GPS limits are called "CoCom limits", and are apparently enforced by the Dept. of Commerce on exportable chips: 1000 knots and/or 18000 meters altitude.
posted by jjwiseman at 8:19 AM on February 7, 2015
posted by jjwiseman at 8:19 AM on February 7, 2015
Does that have any actual impact? I mean I'm guessing some if not the majority of GPS chips are made in China not the US so US and ally export regulations shouldn't make a difference one way or the the other for someone wanting to engage in nefarious activities.
posted by Mitheral at 9:24 AM on February 7, 2015
posted by Mitheral at 9:24 AM on February 7, 2015
The GPS limits are called "CoCom limits", and are apparently enforced by the Dept. of Commerce on exportable chips: 1000 knots and/or 18000 meters altitude.
That'll show those Soviets...
posted by acb at 9:29 AM on February 7, 2015
That'll show those Soviets...
posted by acb at 9:29 AM on February 7, 2015
Does that have any actual impact? I mean I'm guessing some if not the majority of GPS chips are made in China not the US so US and ally export regulations shouldn't make a difference one way or the the other for someone wanting to engage in nefarious activities.
IANAL, but I'm guessing that importing GPS chips not made from legitimately licensed US IP may be a violation of patent laws (or other laws) and may result in the goods being impounded at the border (as has happened with devices involved in patent disputes in the past). And importing GPS-capable devices legitimately would require enforcing the letter of the CoCom restrictions, among other licensing terms.
I wonder how hard it would be to build a GPS processor from scratch (perhaps using FPGAs and/or general-purpose processors). Presumably the encryption keys and other secrets would be the sticking point.
posted by acb at 9:37 AM on February 7, 2015
IANAL, but I'm guessing that importing GPS chips not made from legitimately licensed US IP may be a violation of patent laws (or other laws) and may result in the goods being impounded at the border (as has happened with devices involved in patent disputes in the past). And importing GPS-capable devices legitimately would require enforcing the letter of the CoCom restrictions, among other licensing terms.
I wonder how hard it would be to build a GPS processor from scratch (perhaps using FPGAs and/or general-purpose processors). Presumably the encryption keys and other secrets would be the sticking point.
posted by acb at 9:37 AM on February 7, 2015
People are already doing GPS in software defined radio, even using just a $20 digital TV dongle (and I've done SDR on drone-class CPUs): http://sdr.osmocom.org/trac/blog/rtlsdr-gnss_sdr (There's no encryption on standard civilian GPS.) Which is pretty consistent with most other attempts to put legal restrictions into software or hardware: There's always a way around it, but at least early on in can be a significant barrier.
I guess I think that putting the law into code, like no-fly zones, won't stop people determined to break laws, and it probably shouldn't be legally mandated, but it should be easy to choose or even a default.
posted by jjwiseman at 10:23 AM on February 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
I guess I think that putting the law into code, like no-fly zones, won't stop people determined to break laws, and it probably shouldn't be legally mandated, but it should be easy to choose or even a default.
posted by jjwiseman at 10:23 AM on February 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Considering GPS is both decades old and just math and precise timing I can't imagine any patents are still in force.
posted by Mitheral at 4:58 PM on February 7, 2015
posted by Mitheral at 4:58 PM on February 7, 2015
Considering GPS is both decades old and just math and precise timing I can't imagine any patents are still in force.
There may be patents on implementing it with more modern architectures, though presumably that wouldn't stop somebody replicating a 1990s-vintage GPS processor.
Aside: from what I've heard, the original GPS chipset was the one major remaining legacy of the Inmos Transputer parallel-computing architecture (which was all the rage in the late 80s or so, with pundits predicting that it'd be the core of the next Amiga-killer or somesuch, though soon sank mostly without a trace due to the difficulty of writing software for it).
posted by acb at 5:08 PM on February 7, 2015
There may be patents on implementing it with more modern architectures, though presumably that wouldn't stop somebody replicating a 1990s-vintage GPS processor.
Aside: from what I've heard, the original GPS chipset was the one major remaining legacy of the Inmos Transputer parallel-computing architecture (which was all the rage in the late 80s or so, with pundits predicting that it'd be the core of the next Amiga-killer or somesuch, though soon sank mostly without a trace due to the difficulty of writing software for it).
posted by acb at 5:08 PM on February 7, 2015
Before DJI started implementing no-fly zones, Mapbox had created an open database of no-drone zones (github), which was starting to be integrated into open source mission planners and other tools. I don't remember much if any discussion about actually loading no-fly data onto drones for use during flight, though.
posted by jjwiseman at 10:36 AM on February 8, 2015
posted by jjwiseman at 10:36 AM on February 8, 2015
No Fly Zone is a new company, started by Ben Marcus, that allows you to register your home as a no-fly zone to be honored voluntarily by participating drone companies:
From the FAQ:
posted by jjwiseman at 8:48 AM on February 10, 2015
- Enter your home address and provide basic info. Takes 30 seconds and free for life!
- We verify your information and register your address and GPS coordinates in our NoFlyZone.org database.
- We coordinate with drone manufacturers to automatically prevent drones from flying over your property.
From the FAQ:
What drone companies are in the NoFlyZone participant community?
As of our launch, participating drone companies include DroneDeploy, Ehang (maker of the Ghost-Drone), HEXO+, and YUNEEC.
posted by jjwiseman at 8:48 AM on February 10, 2015
Because it requires no maintainence this will eventually be unworkable.
posted by Mitheral at 9:41 AM on February 10, 2015
posted by Mitheral at 9:41 AM on February 10, 2015
« Older elevator.on("idle", function() { elevator... | Colleges, assaults and carrying the weight Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
My dad is one of those guys who goes through "Employee only" doors because "Well, I'm an employee of my company!" And there's all those people who explore ruins and old tunnels and stuff.
I see a future where that becomes a LOT more prominent. As our technology fences us in, we'll be forced to explore the old world, the natural world, if we want to have any freedom.
posted by rebent at 12:20 PM on February 6, 2015 [4 favorites]