I’m not saying it’s time to learn how to make electro magnetic pulse weapons out of old microwave ovens but it might just be that time.

Sep 1, 2023 5:19 AM

https://news.yahoo.com/york-police-drones-monitor-backyard-204341036.html

I can’t wait to see how they abuse this. /s

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Why can’t people have large parties? Is it a Covid thing?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Step 1 - Have kids. Step 2 - Dress kids in skin-coloured underwear. Step 3 - sue the police for possessing child pornography when they fly overhead.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Then let’s start drone recording all police interactions.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Jesus wtf? Way to go police state

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

How about they deal with real crime and not what people do on their yard.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Get a hawk.

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

i feel like using cheap suicide FPV drones with netting or fine wire to knock the drones out of the sky would be the easiest way to deal with this Orwellian bs without being caught

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

what was that, civil disobedience using high voltage microwave oven transformers?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

A microwave oven does not get you an EMP, at best you can build a really shitty HERF gun of very limited range and a call from the FCC.

3 years ago | Likes 42 Dislikes 5

Couldn't that possibly be tuned to the frequencies used to control the drone? Kinda how telsa coils play music, except with radiation. I guess that's how radios work in the first place, so now I got reading to do...

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Go ask pirate radio broadcasters in the 90s how messing with the FCC goes. Some of them might even be getting out of jail by now.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Up there with the IRS

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

"ITS HERF OR NOTHING!"

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

The fellas at the freaking FCC

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

welcome to the world of tomorrow

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

But why? What do they think to find?

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

Black folks doing BBQ in their own yard totally without anyone shooting them?

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

People they can use civil forfeiture on

3 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 0

Not the hero you deserve, but the hero you need.

3 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

There it is. Sometimes, you gotta get medieval on them.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Marsellus Wallace approves.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Time to start harassing city and police leadership everywhere they go with our own drones then, see how these little fuckers like being surveilled 24/7.

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

Ranged weapons are for cowards, get a drone of your own and put a knife on it.

3 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 1

A drone with a net and you can grab as many as you want. Then do like Ukraine and reflash the drones with your own software. It's free real estate.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I see you've played knifey droney before

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

bottle rockets with fishing line

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I actually just had a better idea, put a bear trap on it.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm sure it will be used on whites and people of color equally.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

More proof we live in a police state~

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

herf cannon!

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

A high powered water gun would also be fun, and legal on its own

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

FYI, the last time I checked (a few years ago), it was highly illegal to mess with aircraft like everyone is suggesting. Be sure to check local laws to know what you're getting into.

3 years ago | Likes 271 Dislikes 13

Sometimes it's not about whether something is legal or not...

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Is it illegal to use machine-learning to identify nearby drones in flight and control a high-powered light to blind them when they get close?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

FYI You can train wild birds to befriend drones using their very friendly metal covered claws on their blades and it's totally not illegal!

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It's only illegal if they catch you.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

FTP

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It is, though you may be permitted to trigger a mfg's "please go home" request if enabled. I'd be curious if intentionally dazzling the cameras (e.g. laser light source) would be construed as illegal interference given the camera is not part of normal flight control and there's no pilot to blind - anyone have any case law or experience?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The problem with that is the drone will see exactly where the laser originated from.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Ah but lasers can bounce many times off of multiple mirrors

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I don't think that's the answer. Even if it doesn't blind the pilot, it makes it impossible to navigate the aircraft and causes a flying hazard for bystanders. We do need to figure out anti-drone stuff though. I like nets.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yah, that's a possibility if the drone is FPV and the operator is relying on visibility to fly. In absence of some clear ruling that it isn't FAA "interference," you'd have to assume it is and so also illegal. So too sending FCC compliant ISM data intended to confuse the drone even if within FCC rules. Difficult to deal with in the US. The operator may be at fault, but you can't do anything about it yourself.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Fuck the police. This is just a bit of civil disobedience.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You own the airspace above your property up to 1k feet. The cops can't fly a drone there without a warrant.

3 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 11

1) You do not, its to the top of your structures plus a "reasonable amount of space", which is on the order of 20ft or so. 2) This is not a land ownership issue, its an FAA airspace issue, and they control the airspace down to the grass. Maximum allowed altitude in approved airspace for drones is 400ft above the terrain and buildings count as terrain.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Naturally, if Slaw Enforcement want to spy on your backyard party, they'll either get exemptions, or not get punished if they don't.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

This is not correct. Airspace at all heights is FAA controlled. Nobody owns airspace above their property.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Ok, so I will be over later to build over your house using supports from the next-door property.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

....you don't understand how "airspace" works versus building codes and zoning laws, do you?

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

No, I love your definition! There are a TON of buildings in NYC that would love to hire you so they don't have to buy airspace anymore!!

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

But they can fly adjacent to your property, presumably.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Any citations for that you’d be kind enough to share? All I’ve found was California v. Ciraolo, which affirmed an unwarranted surveillance at 1k ft without ruling out lower elevations as unlawful. NYC does not have a law preventing police drone surveillance (though I wish they did), only requiring them to disclose aspects of it usage. Sauce: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/nyregion/nypd-police-surveillance-technology-vote.html

3 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

It's also not too smart to mess with broken microwaves or whatever.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

It's wicked smaht

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I've done that, not entirely fun.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

But a little?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Screwing around with stuff you know is potentially dangerous has some level of fun, yeah.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

People have lost fingers using the transformers or whatever it is in there, as a wood burning tool.. messy stuff

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Last time I checked, it was also against FAA regulations to fly a drone outside of the operators line of sight. Not, that that stops anyone, and I've not looked up that law in several years.

3 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 4

Also within a certain distance of the airport as well

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

This requirement can have exemptions, such as if you're flying under a COA. I help with research flights, and we can fly within airport zones, but we have to monitor air traffic control communications and yield to all other aircraft.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Redoing this comment for clarity. Most commercial/organizational drone flights fall under Part 107, which does require line of sight to be maintained. However, you can apply for waivers (COA) to fly without line of sight, at night, above 400 ft, within airport zones, etc. I help with research flights that have a COA - while we do have a company policy to maintain line of sight, we aren't legally required to.

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

You also wouldn't really need non-LOS flying to spot a back yard event. You can see a drone pretty high up, especially when you know what you're looking for, and zoom lenses mean they don't really need to get all that close in.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Very true. Though tbh, I really don't expect cops to follow laws/policies that protect the public. I wouldn't be surprised if they were flying without COA or even Part 107 certification.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

100%

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Laws are for people who get caught.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Which is why you should order drones out of state from multiple sources over years before you start your campaign of anyonymously using drones to destroy police drones

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

on paper, it's illegal (in most cases) to spy innocent people on their own property too..

3 years ago | Likes 138 Dislikes 10

Any space visible from any public or publicly accessible space is not considered a Private space in terms of expectations of privacy, legally speaking. So for the same reason that a nosey neighbor can look into your back yard, yeah, sorry, no.

3 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 3

Really, I've been peeping on people this whole time and getting in trouble and you're telling me all I needed to do was get a drone? You really saved my skin, brother. One more offense and I'd be going to jail for life for my third strike. Lol people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their backyard, especially if it's fenced in or otherwise obscured.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

Tell me you have no idea how the law works withou telling me you get the damn idea.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Except we are talking about walled in areas only visible from above. Expectation of privacy does not end in your own home just because you have a window, an area of obscuring construction like a fence or garden wall should have the expectation of privacy. These seemingly obvious protections are being eroded at an alarming rate by the famously corrupt NYPD.

3 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

Funny you mention that... because you're wrong. Expectation of privacy legally DOES end if you have a window. Close your window blinds. If someone can see into your window from the sidewalk, you have no expectation of privacy in that circumstance whatsoever. As for your yard... Imagine you live next to an apartment building. The second floor can see straight into your yard. Do you still think you have an expectation of privacy then? Hint: The answer is No. You don't.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Rule of thumb for the reasonable expectation of privacy is thus: Can you see it from a public or publicly accessible space, and is it Not a bathroom, private club, or paid entry venue like a concert. If the answer to those questions is Yes, then you have no legal expectation of privacy whatsoever.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's actually not in most cases. Your back yard is not considered "private".

3 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 3

Ehhhh, that's not entirely true. It depends on the "expectation of privacy". If your backyard has a chainlink fence and an alley going along it? no expectation. Do you have a 6 foot privacy fence? Reasonable expectation of privacy. laws on this can vary beyond that obviously and state laws may tweak those expectations.

3 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

It makes sense but it's still stupid. You should honestly reasonably expect SOME privacy in your back frigging yard regardless of whether or not you can afford a privacy fence.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Some yes. All depends if you can defend the reasoning in court.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

3 years ago (deleted Sep 1, 2023 1:23 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Don't forget a judge will have to convict you still. And a jury will have to find you guilty. And 99.9% of the time at least one of that group of people will be a decent human being that says nah fam this dumb as fuck.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

You wanna cite a single case where that's actually happened?

3 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

A quick search engine check provides an unsympathetic validation, after skipping through the more prurient results https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/police-registered-sex-offender-arrested-caught-naked-in-window-as-school-buses-went-by/

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 4

Sounds like people need to start constantly flying drones around the police leaderships' homes. Maybe privacy concerns will be taken more seriously when the shoe is on the other foot.

3 years ago | Likes 224 Dislikes 5

Check out any of those First Amendment Audit channels on youtube. Some of them are legitimately doing nothing but filming a police department and just get attacked.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This.

3 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

Hypocrisy is not new to the blue. Just because they don't like it being done to them will not stop them from doing it to us.

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

It's actually illegal. You can only observe other's homes from public spaces + perspectives. Using a drone violates that. I'd have to imagine it's illegal for law enforcement as well unless they have a warrant

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"Yeah, but you have no law enforcement interests in your surveillance so your is illegal."

3 years ago | Likes 60 Dislikes 3

Who reports crime more often than police do? Like real crime not just "Hey I saw you driving so I'm gonna pin this crime on you and you can't really fight against it." (Get a dashcam that also records your speed, super good investment)

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Fortunately, I live in a country with a sensible police establishment.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Can't you site laws for forming militias, and use that as a reason to keep an eye out on things and certain people?

3 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 1

NotALawyer.jaypeg. No idea.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We need to strap a gun to the drone cause that only works with guns

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Doit.jpeg 😆

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Gathering footage for a news article on how elected officials afford large properties.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

If it was that easy why are drones being used so widely in Ukraine?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Because a drone costs less to replace than a soldier.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes, but a drone destroyer is cheap. Apparently.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Good ones aren't. They're also large, heavy, and (unless you start getting into the vehicle mounted lasers and guided munitions) *only* work on drones.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If the backyard is fenced in, wouldn't they need a warrant?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Not any more than they would have needed one to fly around in a helicopter and look down at the city, I don't think.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I suspect not, as they aren't entering the property, and the drone footage would give them the probable cause needed to either get a 1/

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

warrant, or to not need one. 2/2

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That sounds a lot like the excuses that police use to illegally search vehicles after pulling them over for a busted taillight...

3 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Well, they are the same people, so...

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Remember the TV series, ‘Robot Wars’ where teams made robots to kill opposing team’s robots? Hear me out… live feed ‘Drone Wars’

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Freeze som dead pigeons and fire the from a potato gun at the drone. Looks like an accident then.

3 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

I like you

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Except, they will have a video of you firing a dead pigeon at their drone.

3 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Train pigeons to flock over your property. The price of freedom is eternal pigeon crap over everything

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Train crows or ravens to attack the drone.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Peregrine Falcons. The drone would not know what hit it

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You can just use a slingshot or a laser pointer.

3 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 4

As long as your slingshot can erase the surveillance footage

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Shotgun?? /s

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

To this Australian, a shotgun honestly seems like the most legal American solution to this problem...

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Never use a shotgun sarcastically. Or do, I ain't your daddy.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

In Australia they came up with some ridiculous amount of gaol time for shining a laser pointer at an aircraft. The police can get people pretty easily for it too

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

How do they find the person pointing? (The pointerer? The laserer?)

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

FLIR

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

So the police have to catch them in the act, keep eyes on them, and direct someone on the ground to them? Makes sense if the laserer is, as well as being dumb enough to point a laser at a helicopter, dumb enough to keep doing it

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Sort of yeah, they don’t have to keep doing it. There’s footage of people doing it and then going inside. If you flee the location yeah it would make it more difficult for them

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Remember Roe vs Wade? Well, while it protected abortion, it wasn't about abortion. Sure, an abortion case put it in place, but the case was about privacy. Guess what Constitutional Right was stripped away from everyone in the USA? The right to privacy.

3 years ago | Likes 151 Dislikes 11

I wanted to stop by and say, I know you're correct.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

Can you elaborate on this more?

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Completely incorrect

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I can’t find anything to back this up. Roe Vs Wade is specifically about a woman’s right to abortion being protected by the 14th amendment. So just because they reversed roe vs wade doesn’t mean the 14th amendment doesn’t exists anymore.

3 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 7

the precedent of Roe can be applied to lots of medical privacy, drones don't really come in, but Texas could pass a law mandating you install a Monsanto Agribond chip inside you or something

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The 14th amendment summarized: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

The case hinges on interpreting that amendment as a right to privacy. When they struck down Roe v Wade, they basically said no US citizen has a right to privacy. Thomas basically said as much when talking about it: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-justice-thomas-says-gay-rights-rulings-open-to-be-tossed.html

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

With all the latitude being afforded to trump and his cronies, vs the Jan 6th peasants. The 14th amendment consistently is shown to be somewhat of a gentle suggestion

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga_radar I'm not saying to put up a directional radar array to crash police drones, I'm just letting you know it's possible. Especially since shooting the drone out of the air can get you arrested or at least fined for destruction of police property, whereas it's their own damn fault if they fly around where you're doing amateur radar things on your own damn property.

3 years ago | Likes 602 Dislikes 18

Ok I was leaning towards the shotgun approach granted I don’t live in New York. I mean all they are is skeet ok hard mode

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

let your kids run around half naked in the backyard with the sprinkler on. drones and their operators are now guilty of making child porn.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Can someone post an easy DIY guide, targeted to the technologically challenged? i’d like a free drone. or, er, my friend would

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Bottle rockets with fishing line

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

In Oklahoma, they passed a law that if a drone is over your property, you can shoot it. Of course, in the city that still presents a problem.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

I would just use camo net and say it's to block the sun.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

I fly drones for an engineering and survey company. I already get angry people yelling at me when I'm flying and don't really want to start worrying about shit like this.

3 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

For science.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or according to Sexycyborg. A Blu-ray laser lense and the right diode can actually start stuff on fire.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

just a battery a cheap 1w vtx and set up to cycle channels...

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Drones are under faa jurisdiction, so it would be a federal charge to shoot them down as well

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Good way to get bagged and tagged by the FCC REAL damn quick. If the goal is not to have the cops invade your privacy, doing things that give them warrants to do is, to coin a phrase, "Actually quite dumb".

3 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 1

Yeah… Don’t do this. You’ll be disrupting air traffic by using an unlicensed high-power transmitter. The FAA and FCC are two of the three scariest federal entities to have hunting for you.

3 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

Knock, knock! Who's there!? The Feds! Whoops, there goes your whole door frame. . .

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Having any TLA on your ass is bad.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I don't have any home grown Duga radar at home, is store bought fine?

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Everyone is saying the permits are the big thing, but also modern drones don't crash when jammed, they return to their home location. It would likely just annoy them.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Is far easier and far less illegal to build your own radio jammer circuit. They aren't illegal to own, are a fairly common curiosity project for people fucking around with electricity, and are super small and easy to dismantle after use. They are easy to track down if anyone is looking for it though, and standard "don't fuck with electricity if you don't know what you're doing stupid" rules apply. But it would only take a short blip to disrupt a drone.

3 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 2

seems like it would be easier to get a 300l lumin light and burn out the things camera sensors.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Well then it becomes obvious it was a targeted attack on the drone. It would need to be looking your way for that to work as well, so they'd know where it came from. The jammer can be played off as an accident if they do find you and you don't even really need to be outside to use it. It's all about that plausible deniability

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

maybe I just wanted a really good look at it -.-

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(Note, they are hella illegal to OPERATE for extended periods of time, which is why I mentioned they are super easy to track. But generally short 10-15 second tests aren't somthing the fcc is gonna breath down your neck over unless you're doing it super often.)

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

Duga radar sized may require a few permits!

3 years ago | Likes 91 Dislikes 1

release the air daemon script!

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Good call. Better just shoot it down. Less hassle that way.

3 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 2

bottle rockets with fishing line

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I would rather have an EMP. Oh, God. I would feel invincible, nearly. And everything in the house must be shielded or fudge.

3 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

A pressure washer with diesel in it, and a mapp gas torch would be more fun if you can get 'em close enough!

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Hans, get ze flammenwerfen

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1