Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Technology

Secret Service Investigating Small Drone On White House Grounds 146

Posted by samzenpus from the a-little-off-course dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Secret Service Investigating Small Drone On White House Grounds More

Secret Service Investigating Small Drone On White House Grounds

Comments Filter:

  • What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Slashjones ( 3879223 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @08:50AM (#48903735)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

        by soccerisgod ( 585710 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:15AM (#48903919)
        Bug bomb activating, Thodin!

      • 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: (Score:3)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        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.

        • 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)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            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.

            • 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

              • 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:What's the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @11:46AM (#48905425) Journal
          Perhaps a curious professional decided to sound out the White House defense perimeter, and ran afoul of the top secret drone death ray. If you're planning to fly a drone near or into a site as well guarded as the White House for some specific purpose, this is exactly what you'd do: try with an inexpensive and harmless drone first, masquerading as a hobbyist.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            I cannot determine whether you are trying to be funny or whether you are utterly demented...

        • 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)

            by afidel ( 530433 )

            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?

      • 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

        • What if the goal was merely to see how the security team would react?

          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.

        • 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

      • I can't imagine where someone would have gotten the idea to put explosives on a flying drone. It would take a very sick mind to design such a thing, to say nothing of unleashing it on civilians outside a combat zone. The very notion is vicious and cowardly---we are seeing the new face of evil in our modern era. Is there no end to what violent extremists will do?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        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)

      by Peter Simpson ( 112887 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:20AM (#48903961)

      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...

    • 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]

      • I'm thinking you overestimate the payload capacity of drones, at least for quadcopters (as opposed to plane-styles, which I know nearly nothing about, but would likely be terrifying without any explosive payload if it went full speed into the capital dome). One of the most popular large models for carrying heavier payloads, the DJI Phantom 2, can carry about 320g reliably. That is, it won't be sluggish and unable to compensate for wind gusts at that kind of payload. The thing is, this drone is *big*. I doub

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

          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.

          • 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)

              by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

              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)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            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

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Quadcopter (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @08:55AM (#48903765) Journal

    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)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:04AM (#48903823) Journal
      That's (among the) downsides of our obsession with risk-minimization, overwhelming force, and technological supremacy. Whether it's using $40k hellfires to destroy rust-eaten technicals in hellholistan or calling out the bomb squad every time somebody tosses a paper airplane over the white house fence, we really need to maintain that economic superiority if we want to survive the sheer attrition.

    • 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.

      • Unless you want to get into the White House clothed as a fireman.

      • You wouldn't scout the defences, because that risks giving the game away. You just try it. Either it works, and causes panic; or it gets blown up, reported in the press, and causes panic. Terrorist attacks don't have to hit their target to be successful. The USA is a terrorist's dreamland, because the reaction to attacks is so extreme (like calling the CIA because you see "pressure cooker" in someone's search history).
    • Would it not be one of these [amazon.com]?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by saider ( 177166 )

      Put some seven segment displays with a countdown clock on it. Don't forget the red, green, and blue wires.

      • 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)

      by Thyamine ( 531612 ) <thyamine.ofdragons@com> on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:26AM (#48904005) Homepage Journal
      Exactly my thought. Until they show it's a 'serious' drone, this is most likely some college prank or some idiot that thought it would be funny to see what happens. _Maybe_ it's someone trying to see if they can detect/find something like that, but most likely it's just someone who is going to find out it's very expensive to make the Secret Service run around early in the morning.
    • Forget SWATting; I'm going to try droning all my favorite public servants.

    • ...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

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @08:58AM (#48903781)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • You forgot the teabagger croud... oh wait..

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      I want the penis drones from germany to come to the USA and end up in congressional debates...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by maitas ( 98290 )

      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.

    • Well, it's a better way to get Media coverage of your protest than camping out in Zucatti park. At least for the first few times until the WH tells the media to lay off covering such incidents. And soon you'll have to go completely autonomous once they set up the radio jammers.

  • Will this scale? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WD ( 96061 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:03AM (#48903817)

    What will folks do when drones get to be insect sized?

  • Jackpot! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ebonum ( 830686 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:05AM (#48903833)

    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."

    • clearly it was a false-flag operation by the Secret Service themselves </tinfoilhat>

    • 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)

      by MTEK ( 2826397 )

      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.

      • 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.

        Yes there is. His name is Lt. Gen. Leland Zevo.

  • This is why we can't have nice things.

  • At least it wasn't a 3D printed drone! (Score:3)

    by trout007 ( 975317 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:15AM (#48903925)

    That would have been trouble.

  • They also are investigating other things... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @09:20AM (#48903959) Homepage

    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.

  • Personally I would worry more about the large Drones in the White House and on the Grounds than the small ones. Drone: one that lives on the labors of others. Tim S.

  • Ban...? (Score:5, Informative)

    by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Monday January 26, 2015 @10:02AM (#48904311)
    Between stories like this one, 'peeping Toms' and people flying them into aircraft flight paths you can bet that drones are rapidly moving to the top of the list of things for the governments to ban...

    Or to put it another way, this is why we can't have nice things.

    • Personally, I wonder how such a toy drone compares to a bird in aircraft path...

    • 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? It's not a credible threat unless someone posted about it on Twitter. Everybody knows this.

  • Let's face it. The White House has been FULL of drones for a long time!

  • It was only Huffington Post trying to actually report on something rather than rehashing news from other sources. Instead they created news.

  • but then I suppose if you're serious about it, you simply pre-record the flight path, load it up with some explosives and fly it to your target.
    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

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close