Secret Service Investigating Small Drone On White House Grounds 146
An anonymous reader sends word that the Secret Service is investigating a "device," described as a small drone, found on the grounds of the White House. "A small drone was found on the White House grounds overnight, two law enforcement sources told ABC News, but White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the situation 'does not pose any sort of ongoing threat.' The Secret Service is investigating the device, Earnest said. Police, fire and other emergency vehicles swarmed around the White House in the pre-dawn hours, with several clustered near the southeast entrance to the mansion. The White House was dark and the entire perimeter was on lockdown until around 5 a.m., when pass holders who work in the complex were allowed inside."
What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't seem to have any issues spying on the rest of us and ignoring our privacy. What's the harm in a drone?
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that no one saw it coming in. It all fun and games until someone rigs it with explosives and damages something or someone. This could have been a proof of concept attempt.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
explosives?
chemicals my friend
wouldn't take much of the right kind. nice aerosolizer already provided by the craft
biologic if you're exotic
nuclear just plain stupider
but for maximum shits and giggles and no loss of life, i'd load a degaussing coil on a drone and fly it through a target office. do a little tap over all the workstations to get the hard drives
oh shit, am i on some list now?
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're on the 'I flunked physics last week list'.
A degaussing coil big enough to fry hard drives on drone?
That's one impressive drone there....
Cube of distance, so 47 million pound magnet. (Score:2)
Let's see, a one-pound degausser will work at about 1 inch away.
We want to do it from at least 360 inches away.
The magnetic field strength falls at roughly the cube of distance, so we need a 46,656,000 pound degausser, approximately.
Your hobby drone can't carry 47 million pounds?
Re: (Score:2)
Your hobby drone can't carry 47 million pounds?
What? Yours can't? Noob...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Degausser small enough to be carried by a quadcopter small enough to sneak in: Only degausses itself.
Also fritzes the magnetic field running the rotor motors, causing the quadcopter to crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are the ones outside of the special viewing room. They look grim and apathetic because they aren't in that room masturbating.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. This is some kid that lost control of their toy. Any halfway professional attempt of testing things would not have lost the drone and nothing would have been found.
Re: (Score:2)
Any halfway professional attempt of testing things would not have lost the drone
How can you be so sure? Perhaps they pushed the range too far and/or there was some unexpected interference. The point of a test, after all, is to check for the kind of things you haven't predicted.
That aside, why couldn't it be a less than halfway professional proof of concept attempt?
Lastly, maybe ascertaining/provoking the security response to a drone on the lawn was the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Any halfway competent engineer would have though of all that and made sure it does not happen. Really, you have no clue how professionals work.
A "less than halfway competent" attempt is no danger.
As for finding the drone being the intended effect, that makes only sense for a false-flag operation. It is a possibility, but there _still_ is no danger.
Really, stop being stupid. Stop spreading fear.
Re: (Score:2)
Any halfway competent engineer would have though of all that and made sure it does not happen.
I guess the guys behind SpaceX's last landing attempt weren't halfway competent, then? Obviously they should have made sure a crash couldn't happen before attempting a landing. What a bunch of idiots.
You can't make sure that absolutely nothing will go wrong. That's the only certainty. Any halfway competent engineer would know that.
A "less than halfway competent" attempt is no danger.
There isn't some magical line of competency below which all plans are automatically doomed to failure. You seem to think only in binary terms, or at least you phrase your comments
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the guys behind SpaceX's last landing attempt weren't halfway competent, then? Obviously they should have made sure a crash couldn't happen before attempting a landing. What a bunch of idiots.
Ah yes, because a brand-new experimental test craft is exactly the same as an off-the-shelf remote controlled vehicle owned and tested by thousands of hobbyists across the world.
Or do you think that the unusual flatness of the White House lawn makes it a uniquely difficult environment to fly over....?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? And where did I claim that?
When you declared the proposed - admittedly unlikely - scenario to be first "nonsense" and then "bullshit." And also when you stated as apparent fact that "[t]his is some kid that lost control of their toy" which I would otherwise dismiss as mere emphasis if it wasn't for your generally churlish attitude.
But now you're saying you could - however unlikely that may be - be wrong?
If people with your antagonistic style of rebuttal were to try crying "bullshit" less often and replacing it something along the lin
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly I was voicing _opinions_! You know, things people think may be right but do not claim as truth. Apparently you have problems with the concept. Attributes like "bullshit" or "nonsense" clearly mark opinions, not statements of fact.
You seem to have some rather serious problem interpreting what people say. I mean that not in the sense that I am trying to insult you, but in the sense that I detect an actual perception problem on your side. Maybe get that looked at, it could help you avoid serious misint
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly I was voicing _opinions_!
I disagree that it was clear, and your belligerent tone certainly doesn't help matters (and is the main reason for me replying in the first place).
Attributes like "bullshit" or "nonsense" clearly mark opinions, not statements of fact.
I disagree. Both are synonyms for "false," as in "this is false."
You seem to have some rather serious problem interpreting what people say.
And if I said that was "bullshit" I don't see how anyone could interpret that other than as an absolute denial of your impression. You seem to me to have a problem with other people differing with you - I don't know whether that's actually true or not, but you certainly come across that way.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a rather absolute view of things. Real life does not work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't present your opinions in such absolute terms!
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot determine whether you are trying to be funny or whether you are utterly demented...
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been interesting if the drone was detected and they actually tried to shoot it down using the ground to air missile battery installed around the WH. Talk about massive overkill. They are going to end firing the rest of the current Secret Service agents who kept their jobs after the last security breach when someone actually made it into the WH. This drone serves as an excellent proof of concept and the next one might not be so benign.
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings up an interesting point, the WH doesn't seem to have an intermediate defense against things like small aircraft, cruise missiles, or mortars (the IRA attacked #10 downing street with mortars). I wonder why they don't add CIWS to the roof as a complement to the manpads which are intended for larger aircraft?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that no one saw it coming in. It all fun and games until someone rigs it with explosives and damages something or someone. This could have been a proof of concept attempt.
Could have been... but probably wasn't. I'm guessing it was a $50 Walmart toy. Why? Because it ran out of batteries without warning while over the White House lawn and the owner couldn't reclaim it because of the security fence. Larger drones have battery warnings and some even have GPS-guided return-to-base functions on low battery.
Using a micro-quad is no proof-of-concept at all, as it wouldn't be able to carry a sufficient payload, and your goal would be to verify that a copter large enough to deliver a
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree that it's unlikely that this is anything other than a lost drone with no nefarious intentions behind it crashing/landing on the grounds of the White House, but to completely rule out any ulterior motive, especially for individuals running security isn't reasonable. If nothing else, it should at least force them to come up with a policy or security measures. Sometimes a pure accident has some beneficial outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing it was a $50 Walmart toy. Why?
Because people on /. love to guess about details when those guesses can be used to ridicule or embarrass someone.
Because it ran out of batteries without warning while over the White House lawn and the owner couldn't reclaim it because of the security fence. Larger drones have battery warnings and some even have GPS-guided return-to-base functions on low battery.
A group I know recently took three quads to a beach to do some scientific research. Bought with limited funds so they aren't just toys, they're tools that need to be used properly and maintained for multiple uses.
Only one came back. Two of them wound up in the ocean.
Low battery return functions only work if they trigger far enough in advance that they can make it back to safety. The one I hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, I'm picturing a sad kid lamenting that his cool Christmas present barely lasted a month...
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Funny)
They don't seem to have any issues spying on the rest of us and ignoring our privacy. What's the harm in a drone?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and guess that he's not going to be getting that back...
Re: (Score:2)
What's the harm in a drone?
That depends on the payload.
Military grade C-4 is commonly packaged as the M112 demolition block. The demolition charge M112 is a rectangular block of Composition C-4 approximately 2 inches by 1.5 inches and 11 inches long, weighing 1.25 lb (0.57 kg.)
C-4 (explosive) [wikipedia.org]
Recipes for homemade C4 can be found on most any Doomsday Prepper site.
How to make C4 with RDX Explosives [uscrow.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.hobbyexpress.com/12... [hobbyexpress.com]
Can carry several pounds of payload. Of course it would probably be pretty noticeable
As too shooting it down? That may cause more damage than the plane would.
I really wish people would stop using drones for most of these. They are simply RC Aircraft that have been around since the 1940s. Nothing really new or scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, about a 12 foot wingspan prop plane.....it'll get shot down long before it gets near a target like the WH. I think the guy from Ohio actually had the best concept for trying this type of attack - small amount of explosives on a jet-style RC that would be fast moving (I've seen them go up past 400mph) and hard to hit, and is more likely to actually make it inside of the building since you could aim for the glass.
On the WH specifically, I doubt you'd be able to have even a few pounds of C4 do significan
Re: (Score:2)
Actually a plane like the Telemaster would be better than a jet. Paint it grey so it blends in and if possible use an electric motor.
It would fly too low and too slow to be shot down. I do not think that they would use SAMs to attack a model aircraft at 100ft over a city since you would probably kill more people from the sam blast than the plane.
At this point I will stop since I do not want to give anyone ideas but I would not use such an aircraft to attack the WH.
Re: (Score:2)
The self targeting computer payload is the dangerous part. Just get it near the target and let it go. Countries of course will be able to do more with drones or more accurately aerial mines. For example incorporating the explosive within the battery, so that between individual storage cells you have a layer of explosive material and so that you can incorporate the battery metals in the high speed burn, creating a very high compression, short range detonation. There is nothing wrong with having quad copters
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet every non-routine transmission is tracked in close proximity to the WH and jammers are always warmed up.
They likely put the drone on a trajectory then ran like Frenchmen. But perhaps I overestimate the feds electronic warfare capabilities. I doubt it. They spend a lot of money on it and have for decades.
Quadcopter (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably one of those $15 nano quadcopters. You could get lot of bang for your buck flying something so trivial onto the White House lawn, if you were wanting to cause some commotion.
Re:Quadcopter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably one of those $15 nano quadcopters. You could get lot of bang for your buck flying something so trivial onto the White House lawn, if you were wanting to cause some commotion.
Certainly.
Unless it was an innocent mistake or a sinister scouting mission against defenses. In either of these cases, commotion would be quite the opposite of the reaction you'd be shooting for.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you want to get into the White House clothed as a fireman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Put some seven segment displays with a countdown clock on it. Don't forget the red, green, and blue wires.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays they detonate these in bomb chambers using an "initiating charge" (a small bomb of their own).
There was that guy who just stood for a couple hours in front of White House, with his briefcase.
They checked the briefcase with xray. They found clothes, essential business travel stuff, nothing suspicious. They detonated it anyway.
Re:Quadcopter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...if you were wanting to cause some commotion.
Or it could just have been an accident. I know I've lost the control of my drone before. In my case, it was because I had the toggle on for absolute control, so no matter how much I would twist and turn my tablet -- it would keep on going the wrong way.
And please don't tell me you wouldn't take a drone to Washington DC. Taking pictures or videos with a small drone is awesome (assuming you don't lose control of it while doing it). It lets you take shots from unusual perspectives and it differentiates your pi
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Making B and C weapons is hard, and delivering them is extremely hard. Nobody capable of that would be so pathetically amateurish to have their recon vehicle found. Stop spreading fear.
Re: (Score:3)
Making Chemical weapons requires that knowledge and skills of a 1916 Chemist.
Now if you want to make a Nerve agent you are up to about 1943.
Re: (Score:3)
Making a _deliverable_ chemical weapon requires far far more. Chlorine gas is not something that is effective in small quantities. And for nerve agents, there is not only the delivery problem, but also the slight issue that you do not want to kill yourself making/storing/handling it and it still requires a significant quantity.
Really, you have lost your rationality. Stop spreading fear!
Re: (Score:2)
I am not afraid of it. Mustard gas was developed during WWI. Nerve gas during WWII.
Sarin has been made by terrorists and used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
I am not afraid of a chemical weapon drone attack because the payload is so low. But why say something that has happened can never happen? Frankly I wonder just how long it will be before some other wack job pulls of a chemical weapons attack. I doubt that it will be any worse than some of the regular bombs in death toll and again I am not going to li
Re: (Score:2)
But why say something that has happened can never happen?
Mustard gas in WWI was delivered in artillery barrages. Multiple large shells delivered over a large area. Mustard gas cannot be delivered in sufficient quantity by Hubsan quadcopter to cause any real harm whatsoever. Claiming the two situations are at all comparable is like suggesting because the first nuclear bombs used hydrogen, we should be afraid of terrorists using dihydrogen monoxide....
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about the terrorists in japan that made Sarin and used it in two attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Only one person died. He would have been fine except he tried to cleanup the liquid Sarin.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahhh... No
From the Wikipedia
"In five coordinated attacks, the perpetrators released sarin on several lines of the Tokyo subway, killing 12 people, severely injuring 50 and causing temporary vision problems for nearly 1,000 others."
And yes that was without an effective dispersal system.
Yes sparky, terrorists have created chemical weapons and used them to kill and injure a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Just thinking, if a decent-size quad-copter can deliver say 100ml of mustard gas, it may be completely harmless in and off itself; when news spread that mustard gas made it anywhere near the white house in any amount....
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I want the penis drones from germany to come to the USA and end up in congressional debates...
Re: (Score:2)
The world is changing fast and governments are not responding in a timely manner to the new reality.
Everyone as able to get a cheap drone.
Everyone is able to work as a Taxi without license nor paying taxes.
Everyone is able to work as a Hotel without paying taxes.
Regulations are no longer effective.
We really need a new kind of government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will this scale? (Score:4, Interesting)
What will folks do when drones get to be insect sized?
Re:Will this scale? (Score:4, Funny)
carry lots of e-raid spray?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that the White House has seen the technical manual [youtube.com] on how to deal with this problem.
Defense in depth, as it were.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlikely to scale that much anytime soon. Battery size -> radio range; Battery size + motor size -> power -> ability to overcome wind. Mass -> stability -> ability to overcome wind. Add to that lifting power to carry any payload.
Yes, you'll be able to get very small indoor RC quadcopters with several meters of range. But if you want to fly it over GSM while streaming from internal camera, you're not getting it smaller than your palm anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Handheld Zapper [amazon.com] to the rescue!
Jackpot! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is only question now. Which federal agency will respond first with: "We can't guarantee your safety without a budget increase of N billion USD."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid... [bbc.co.uk]
"During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA. "
Re: (Score:2)
So whom did CIA fund and train in Afghanistan in 80s, to fight against Soviets?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes; it was the US screwing up the endgame and treating their allies instrumentally - discarding them once they were no longer needed, leaving them to their own devices in the wrecked country. Still, it's not a huge leap of faith to imagine the indifference, callousness, shortsightedness were all a cover-up for more sinister motives. They say 'don't ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity', but it doesn't take a very crackpot mind to do that here. We're talking about the most powerful military
Re:Jackpot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is only question now. Which federal agency will respond first with: "We can't guarantee your safety without a budget increase of N billion USD."
Not just who's first, but how many?
Silver lining? Perhaps some cool anti-UAV tech will trickle down to us civilians.
Re: (Score:1)
Someone somewhere is seriously wondering if we can scale an air defense battery to the size of toy firetrucks and SAMs that are the size of bottle rockets.
Or maybe I should stop daydreaming and get back to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there is. His name is Lt. Gen. Leland Zevo.
See... (Score:1)
Re:See... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like something from Monty Python.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the reason we can't have nice things is because of overlord over-reaction. Don't be such a submissive putz.
At least it wasn't a 3D printed drone! (Score:3)
That would have been trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
Once the feds realize that drones need an atmosphere to fly, we're all doomed.
They also are investigating other things... (Score:5, Funny)
They also found some very high tech surveillance drones made from some high tech composites made to look like common folded notebook paper. It seems that these high tech spy planes also use a printed circuitry that looks like words on the surface.
The secret service is still researching these severe breaches of security. While they let a crazy guy run across the lawn and enter the white house in broad day light.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that there's more than meets the eyes?
Secret Service Investigating Small Drone On White (Score:1)
Ban...? (Score:5, Informative)
Or to put it another way, this is why we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I wonder how such a toy drone compares to a bird in aircraft path...
Re: (Score:2)
They won't ban drones but they'll make a law making it illegal to fly drones higher than the height of a standard backyard fence.
But did they post about it on Twitter? (Score:2)
But did they post about it on Twitter? It's not a credible threat unless someone posted about it on Twitter. Everybody knows this.
Shocked this is newsworthy... I mean, (Score:2)
Let's face it. The White House has been FULL of drones for a long time!
oops Huffington Post drone down! (Score:2)
It was only Huffington Post trying to actually report on something rather than rehashing news from other sources. Instead they created news.
The article speaks of electronic jamming (Score:2)
No remote signals to jam. Really small target and will not be easy to see ( electronically, think radar ) if flying low enough to the ground.
The article also spoke of active countermeasure systems, but I don't see them shooting down drones with anything that would endanger the public. Far too much PR fallout to deal with should anyone get hurt.
These things are goi
Battery Fail (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking Boeing. But as they were not on fire, you could be correct.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be right on the mark....