Just came across this article discussing drone defense systems for
Customers of superyachts…

“…and it’s good to understand that it is actually illegal to go within 50
meters of something that's deemed outside of your control with a drone.”

< https://apple.news/AzhLyw5-JRDqlMgEAfgmpWw>

Granted, I’ve not followed what the rules are for drone operations,
but this “50m” free fire zone seems a tad … odd? Does it really
have legit legal basis? FWIW, seems like the super rich’s main
concern is paparazzi photo “intrusions”…

-hh

On Dec 14, 2021, hh wrote
(in article<7f735163-906e-4580-88e0-f5ecdf2b1948n@googlegroups.com>):

> Just came across this article discussing drone defense systems for
> Customers of superyachts…
>
> “…and it’s good to understand that it is actually illegal to go within
> 50
> meters of something that's deemed outside of your control with a drone.”
>
> < https://apple.news/AzhLyw5-JRDqlMgEAfgmpWw>
>
> Granted, I’ve not followed what the rules are for drone operations,
> but this “50m” free fire zone seems a tad … odd? Does it really
> have legit legal basis?

That’s going to depend on the jurisdiction, right?

> FWIW, seems like the super rich’s main
> concern is paparazzi photo “intrusions”…
>
> -hh

On 2021-12-14 20:36, -hh wrote:
> Just came across this article discussing drone defense systems for
> Customers of superyachts…
>
>
> “…and it’s good to understand that it is actually illegal to go within 50
> meters of something that's deemed outside of your control with a drone.”
>
> < https://apple.news/AzhLyw5-JRDqlMgEAfgmpWw>
>
> Granted, I’ve not followed what the rules are for drone operations,
> but this “50m” free fire zone seems a tad … odd? Does it really
> have legit legal basis? FWIW, seems like the super rich’s main
> concern is paparazzi photo “intrusions”…

In Canada the limit 30m (approach to people "not involved" in the
operation of the drone). Every jurisdiction will have it laws/rules for
flying drones and laws/rules for privacy.

IMO, approaching someone's yacht for the purpose of photography is
invasion of privacy. Paparazi are not a necessary thing.

Jamming radio signals is not legal in many jurisdictions and that could
apply to this "defense". If the yacht is outside the 12 NM territorial
limit, then the yacht would be under the laws of his registry flag (I
think - maritime law is a morass).

Further, I could program a drone to fly a mission autonomously, take
video and stills and return with the recording. (Not DJI style drones,
but more advanced (or less depending on your POV) drones). Jamming
won't do the job.

A more powerful EMP device could potentially cause the drone to crash -
but that would be destruction of private property - another
jurisdictional issue and likely a radio interference offense as well.

"UHNW" individuals probably don't care - but at some point someone will
get into trouble with this...

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no live birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 11:05:22 AM UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2021-12-14 20:36, -hh wrote:
> > Just came across this article discussing drone defense systems for
> > Customers of superyachts…
> >
> >
> > “…and it’s good to understand that it is actually illegal to go within 50
> > meters of something that's deemed outside of your control with a drone.”
> >
> > < https://apple.news/AzhLyw5-JRDqlMgEAfgmpWw>
> >
> > Granted, I’ve not followed what the rules are for drone operations,
> > but this “50m” free fire zone seems a tad … odd? Does it really
> > have legit legal basis? FWIW, seems like the super rich’s main
> > concern is paparazzi photo “intrusions”…
>
> In Canada the limit 30m (approach to people "not involved" in the
> operation of the drone). Every jurisdiction will have it laws/rules for
> flying drones and laws/rules for privacy.
>
> IMO, approaching someone's yacht for the purpose of photography is
> invasion of privacy. Paparazi are not a necessary thing.

The 'Paparazi' privacy angle is understood; the dilemma is how do
they determine this before scragging someone's $1000 drone?

> "UHNW" individuals probably don't care - but at some point someone will
Particularly since a defeat may not be obviously detectable, so anyone
who claims a lost drone won't be able to readily come up with the
evidence that they were deliberately "shot down": the better paid lawyer wins.

-hh

On 2021-12-15 11:44, -hh wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 11:05:22 AM UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:

>> IMO, approaching someone's yacht for the purpose of photography is
>> invasion of privacy. Paparazi are not a necessary thing.
>
> The 'Paparazi' privacy angle is understood; the dilemma is how do
> they determine this before scragging someone's $1000 drone?

Per the article they're looking at interfering with the drone, not
"scragging" (never heard that but I don't want it to happen to me
either) it. Also the article said the "system" (vaguely described at
best) would give indicators to the crew who would have to decide on the
course of action. So the drone flight behaviour would be a clue to
intent. (the "UHNW" individual might have issued harsh SOs however).

Some people just want to take photos of the pretty yacht, not the people
aboard.

>
>
>> "UHNW" individuals probably don't care - but at some point someone will
>
> Particularly since a defeat may not be obviously detectable, so anyone
> who claims a lost drone won't be able to readily come up with the
> evidence that they were deliberately "shot down": the better paid lawyer wins.

These days a software defined radio that records jammers would be all
but trivial to implement. How that stands up in court remains to be seen.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 12:56:11 PM UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2021-12-15 11:44, -hh wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 11:05:22 AM UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
>
> >> IMO, approaching someone's yacht for the purpose of photography is
> >> invasion of privacy. Paparazi are not a necessary thing.
> >
> > The 'Paparazi' privacy angle is understood; the dilemma is how do
> > they determine this before scragging someone's $1000 drone?
>
> Per the article they're looking at interfering with the drone, not
> "scragging" (never heard that but I don't want it to happen to me
> either) it.

Sorry for my slang. I'm basically referring to any engagement which
causes the drone to be lost to its owner. For example, an "interfere" which
causes the drone to immediately self-land ... and that puts it into the water
(because Yacht) results in the drone being damaged/lost.

> Also the article said the "system" (vaguely described at best)
> would give indicators to the crew who would have to decide on the
> course of action.

This is trying to imply that the system would be "man in the loop"
(a human specifically authorizes the system to engage. That's a
smart move for the manufacturer, as it shifts much of the legal liability
from their product to the human who made the authorization.

> So the drone flight behaviour would be a clue to intent.
> (the "UHNW" individual might have issued harsh SOs however).
> Some people just want to take photos of the pretty yacht, not the
> people aboard.

"Just fly casual"
- Han Solo
Accurately determining intent in this sort of context is vexing/challenging.

> >> "UHNW" individuals probably don't care - but at some point someone will
> >
> > Particularly since a defeat may not be obviously detectable, so anyone
> > who claims a lost drone won't be able to readily come up with the
> > evidence that they were deliberately "shot down": the better paid lawyer wins.
>
> These days a software defined radio that records jammers would be all
> but trivial to implement. How that stands up in court remains to be seen.

That should be pretty straightforward, for those who have resources.
Your everyday drone flier hobbyist .. probably not so much.

-hh

On 15/12/2021 19:12, -hh wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 12:56:11 PM UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2021-12-15 11:44, -hh wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 11:05:22 AM UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>> IMO, approaching someone's yacht for the purpose of photography is
>>>> invasion of privacy. Paparazi are not a necessary thing.
>>>
>>> The 'Paparazi' privacy angle is understood; the dilemma is how do
>>> they determine this before scragging someone's $1000 drone?
>>
>> Per the article they're looking at interfering with the drone, not
>> "scragging" (never heard that but I don't want it to happen to me
>> either) it.
>
> Sorry for my slang. I'm basically referring to any engagement which
> causes the drone to be lost to its owner. For example, an "interfere" which
> causes the drone to immediately self-land ... and that puts it into the water
> (because Yacht) results in the drone being damaged/lost.
>
>> Also the article said the "system" (vaguely described at best)
>> would give indicators to the crew who would have to decide on the
>> course of action.
>
> This is trying to imply that the system would be "man in the loop"
> (a human specifically authorizes the system to engage. That's a
> smart move for the manufacturer, as it shifts much of the legal liability
> from their product to the human who made the authorization.
>
>
>> So the drone flight behaviour would be a clue to intent.
>> (the "UHNW" individual might have issued harsh SOs however).
>> Some people just want to take photos of the pretty yacht, not the
>> people aboard.
>
> "Just fly casual"
> - Han Solo
>
> Accurately determining intent in this sort of context is vexing/challenging.
>
>
>
>>>> "UHNW" individuals probably don't care - but at some point someone will
>>>
>>> Particularly since a defeat may not be obviously detectable, so anyone
>>> who claims a lost drone won't be able to readily come up with the
>>> evidence that they were deliberately "shot down": the better paid lawyer wins.
>>
>> These days a software defined radio that records jammers would be all
>> but trivial to implement. How that stands up in court remains to be seen.
>
> That should be pretty straightforward, for those who have resources.
> Your everyday drone flier hobbyist .. probably not so much.
>
> -hh

It might make sense for drone software to have a test for something like
"control signal clarity", and be able to send the logical equivalent of
a "flashing red light" back with the video stream. That would give the
pilot a chance to back away from the danger area. Or even just trigger
"retrace flight path for 20 seconds", or return to base.

Don't some drones already have "return to base if signal is lost"
functionality?

On 2021-12-15 17:24, newshound wrote:

> It might make sense for drone software to have a test for something like
> "control signal clarity", and be able to send the logical equivalent of
> a "flashing red light" back with the video stream. That would give the
> pilot a chance to back away from the danger area. Or even just trigger
> "retrace flight path for 20 seconds", or return to base.
>
> Don't some drones already have "return to base if signal is lost"
> functionality?

Yes, all DJI drones (past 5 years or more) will initiate the return on
signal loss. It behooves the operator to set that up properly (ie: will
climb high enough to clear all obstacles on the return trip, for example).

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.