Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I remain highly skeptical about this case. The drone flyer apparently produced flight data that showed the drone was not flying at the altitude the shooter claimed, but yet the case was dismissed based pretty much on his say-so claim.

I mean, if the drone legitimately was doing that, then I have no problem with him shooting it down, but when there's apparently flight data evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why the charges were simply dismissed on the defendants say-so.

The flight data is tainted because it was returned to the owner. Him producing the data proves nothing because of that. The data would only be admissible if the drone had never been given back. Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.

I'm not sure that's what I'd be worried about. Changing data like that is not like just editing a word document, and while theoretically possible, probably not particularly plausible. The bigger question would be if the data has been verified in some way as to coincide with the incident in question, as presenting data from another run would be far more plausible than actually editing the flight data. If it has been verified, then it's not so circumspect as to be called "worthless".

It's certainly no less trustworthy than the shooter's word.

Why does the the language of the output matter? Why are you focusing on that?

As for numbers, thats freaking easy. Altitude readings, speed, and time if necessary.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why does the the language of the output matter? Why are you focusing on that?

As for numbers, thats freaking easy. Altitude readings, speed, and time if necessary.

Oh, OK! You're right - that is easy. Hell, I know numbers.

But... still. How specifically do you do that? Do you hook the drone up to a laptop or something?

What software lets you change those numbers?

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why does the the language of the output matter? Why are you focusing on that?

As for numbers, thats freaking easy. Altitude readings, speed, and time if necessary.

Oh, OK! How specifically do you do that? Do you hook the drone up to a laptop or something?

What software lets you change those numbers?

Why does that freaking matter? Its possible, ergo the evidence is tainted.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never said everyone knows how to do it.

It was kind of implied by the fact that you kept harping on it as though it was some simplistic thing to do.

I don't know how to do it. You don't know how to do it. We could probably figure out how to do it, but what does it matter in this case? The judge dismissed it pretty much out of hand--which is downright irresponsible, as the firearms charges against this guy should NOT have been dismissed this quickly.

It matters because thats why the evidence is tainted.

Yeah, that's not how "evidence" actually works. If I submit something into evidence, I also have to produce to the court the process which the evidence was obtained by--and if it comes out that tampered evidence is brought in? That's a pretty hefty criminal charge.

Anyway, the firearms charge is a separate violation, it has nothing to do with the case the judge threw out(which was the drone owner suing the homeowner for breaking his toy). You can be mad at the firearms charge getting dismissed without trying to say the drone guy had any case whatsoever.

And you can understand that you might not know what you're talking about. Did you watch the video in the OP? Because clearly that was not a stable person being handcuffed. That is someone who has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER OWNING FIREARMS.

Nothing about this case suggests that Merideth was in the right except for people like Frazzled who are insistent that a drone flying over your property=perverts.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why does that freaking matter? Its possible, ergo the evidence is tainted.

Is it possible, though? You keep saying not only is it possible, but that it's easy ("freaking easy", and in fact, it probably was falsified. You say you don't know how, but explain that nearly everyone knows a programmer who can just change a few numbers to do so.

You should admit you don't know what you're talking about, and that you have no idea if it could be falsified or not.

 Ouze wrote:
Is it possible, though? You keep saying not only is it possible, but that it's easy, and in fact, it probably was falsified. You say you don't know how, but explain that nearly everyone knows a programmer who can just change a few numbers to do so.

You should admit you don't know what you're talking about, and that you have no idea if it could be falsified or not.

Are you seriously counter-claiming that it could not possibly have been falsified? All I have been claiming is that tampering is possible, and not a remote possibility either. We don't know if it was or not, but thats not important. What is important is that it could have been, and thats the end of story.

All that matters is that it could have been falsified, thats all that is necessary for evidence to be thrown out. Evidence can be thrown out of court because someone messed up the search warrant paperwork, which is a very minor issue compared to leaving evidence in the possession of someone who would have a vested interest in tampering with it.

Forgive me for using some expressive language, its called normal conversation. This isn't a formal debate. Stop being such a stick in the mud.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Is it possible, though? You keep saying not only is it possible, but that it's easy, and in fact, it probably was falsified. You say you don't know how, but explain that nearly everyone knows a programmer who can just change a few numbers to do so.

You should admit you don't know what you're talking about, and that you have no idea if it could be falsified or not.

Are you seriously counter-claiming that it could not possibly have been falsified?

All I have been claiming is that tampering is possible, and not a remote possibility either.

You keep doing this. You keep saying that it's likely that the data is falsified, and that it's a trivial matter, when you clearly know absolutely nothing about it whatsoever. I actually do know what I am talking about, so I will just tell you: The telemetry comes from a module that overlays it onto a video in real-time. It's not user accessible at all, and no programmer can do anything with it, because you need a video editing specialist. You literally don't know anything about it, at all, and yet here you are telling us not only is it easy it's likely.

I already stated a few pages back that it's possible to edit the video, theoretically, but it would be very difficult. I don't think I could do it, and I certainly could not do it within 24 hours, and I have a background in graphics editing. Furthermore, I also explained that doing such editing would alter the metadata of the file and make it clear it's been tampered with. So, it's possible, but possible in the way that I might hit the powerball possible.


This whole thread is like being in a gun thread where one person keeps ranting about high capacity magazine clips and how we need to get these fully automatic Assault Rifle 15's off the streets.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Evidence can be thrown out of court because someone messed up the search warrant paperwork, which is a very minor issue compared to leaving evidence in the possession of someone who would have a vested interest in tampering with it.

You're confusing two different issues here. When evidence is thrown out because of paperwork issues it's to protect constitutional rights, not concerns over tampering with the evidence.

Also, as has been pointed out already, merely having the possibility that evidence was tampered with does not automatically exclude it. For example, if a gun used in a murder is recovered from the suspect's house it's still valid evidence even though the suspect has had plenty of opportunity to tamper with it. To exclude the evidence from the drone the court should have to establish that it was tampered with, which is a lot more complicated than just saying "it wasn't in police custody the whole time".

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Is it possible, though? You keep saying not only is it possible, but that it's easy, and in fact, it probably was falsified. You say you don't know how, but explain that nearly everyone knows a programmer who can just change a few numbers to do so.

You should admit you don't know what you're talking about, and that you have no idea if it could be falsified or not.

Are you seriously counter-claiming that it could not possibly have been falsified?

All I have been claiming is that tampering is possible, and not a remote possibility either.

You keep doing this. You keep saying that it's likely that the data is falsified, and that it's a trivial matter, when you clearly know absolutely nothing about it whatsoever. I actually do know what I am talking about, so I will just tell you: The telemetry comes from a module that overlays it onto a video in real-time. It's not user accessible at all, and no programmer can do anything with it, because you need a video editing specialist. You literally don't know anything about it, at all, and yet here you are telling us not only is it easy it's likely.

I already stated a few pages back that it's possible to edit the video, theoretically, but it would be very difficult. I don't think I could do it, and I certainly could not do it within 24 hours, and I have a background in graphics editing. Furthermore, I also explained that doing such editing would alter the metadata of the file and make it clear it's been tampered with. So, it's possible, but possible in the way that I might hit the powerball possible.


This whole thread is like being in a gun thread where one person keeps ranting about fully automatic magazine clips and how we need to get these fully automatic Assault Rifle 15's off the streets.

So you freely admit it could be tampered with? Good. I accept your concession.

Fair point on it needing to be video editing and not programming. But my point still stands. It could be tampered with, ergo its tainted evidence.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Evidence can be thrown out of court because someone messed up the search warrant paperwork, which is a very minor issue compared to leaving evidence in the possession of someone who would have a vested interest in tampering with it.

You're confusing two different issues here. When evidence is thrown out because of paperwork issues it's to protect constitutional rights, not concerns over tampering with the evidence.

Also, as has been pointed out already, merely having the possibility that evidence was tampered with does not automatically exclude it. For example, if a gun used in a murder is recovered from the suspect's house it's still valid evidence even though the suspect has had plenty of opportunity to tamper with it. To exclude the evidence from the drone the court should have to establish that it was tampered with, which is a lot more complicated than just saying "it wasn't in police custody the whole time".

And the reason that Right exists to prevent evidence from being manufactured or tainted, by, say, law enforcement or some other party which has an interest in seeing someone wrongly convicted.

And another game of pigeon chess comes to a rousing conclusion.

good night, all.

I think we've determined that "could be tampered with" does not mean "absolutely was tampered with" nor does it mean "will be inadmissible in court".

So we should probably move on from that now...

Edit: Nvm.

Sorry to see the pissin' and fightin' like this between people I know have above average intelligence.

edit: should probably finish reading a thread before I post

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.

Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean you don't know? You just explained how pedestrian such knowledge is - this isn't the dark age of computers, and all. Surely you know the answer, or if you don't, you know a programmer who can answer such trivial questions? You're saying so confidently the telemetry could be falsified by, well, almost anyone. It should be child's play for you to show us how - after all, you know it's just some numbers that need to be changed - or at lease ask a friend - which you say is super easy to find - who can answer those simple questions.

What numbers need to be changed?

What language is the output in?

Geeze, you just really won't let it go will you?

I do know people who know programming. I know they could easily do this. I don't know jack squat about computer coding though. I could ask my friends who do though, but we'd be here a while waiting for them to get back. I never said it could be falsified by everyone, I just said everyone at least would know someone who could.

I know nothing about computer languages, but all you need to change is the data values for the various telemetry. I'm not gonna go digging and find the exact coding changes for this exact model of drone. Its possible, you know this full well and are just being stubborn.

I think you should admit you're talking out of your ass.

My boy could do it, but it would take away from his time computing the perfect formula for alcohol consumption vs. cost.
He would think it...pedestrian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why does the the language of the output matter? Why are you focusing on that?

As for numbers, thats freaking easy. Altitude readings, speed, and time if necessary.

Oh, OK! How specifically do you do that? Do you hook the drone up to a laptop or something?

What software lets you change those numbers?

Why does that freaking matter? Its possible, ergo the evidence is tainted.

Which is why, the moment he was given the drone, the case was over.

I'm not sure why we are back to simply parroting back points already made and discussed as if none of that discussion or counterpoints even happened or been raised on this very page, but at this point it's pretty clear I can find better things to do with my time that repeat myself until I get a warning.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not sure why we are back to simply parroting back points already made and discussed as if none of that discussion or counterpoints even happened or been raised on this very page, but at this point it's pretty clear I can find better things to do with my time that repeat myself until I get a warning.

Not getting why then hostility.

More like... sad resignation than hostility. I think I'm over hostility in this thread at least

Here's a page to explain how you can access the apparently standard tlog format telemetry log files, and their derivative param files.

http://copter.ardupilot.com/wiki/common-mission-planner-telemetry-logs/

It says the param file is a simple csv format and can be read in a spreadsheet, so it wouldn't be difficult to modify it.

Here is a set of free utility software that apparently runs on C, C++ and Python environments and ican used for fiddling around with drone telemetry and control files.

http://qgroundcontrol.org/mavlink/start

It took me a couple of minutes on Google to find these links.

I don't know much about drones, but it looks rather interesting and I am tempted to get one.

That is an example of such a system, but it's not the system in question.

The one you are referencing is made by 3D Robotics and used in their Solo drones (among others). You can also build your own if you buy the components. It uses open source software so it's very accessible.

The drone in question is a Phantom 3, which uses a proprietary DJI flight computer (probably based on the DJI A2, but with support for the visual positioning system not available when the A2 was released). The flight computer in this system is not available separately and the software is closed source.

DJI does have an older system - Naza + A2 - which is available for if you build your own, but this is not what the Phantom 3 uses.

---

The Phantom 3 system creates 2 videos: one of which is stored on an sdcard on the Phantom itself, in the camera. With a sudden loss of power or damage, the output may be corrupted. It's sometimes possible to repair this file, and sometimes it is not.

While in flight, the Phantom streams a live video feedback over Lightbridge to a controller with a android or ios device (usually a tablet) running the DJI Go app. The telemetry from the drone is automatically overlaid onto the live video stream from a module on the drone; it just gets purely video data - there is no stream of telemetry that leaves the drone individually. The first person view video is saved on the android or ios tablet. What he showed the news was the video from the tablet he viewed the flight from.

If you are thinking of buying one, I would strongly recommend getting a Hubsan H107c, a Syma X5, or some other (inexpensive) quadcopter first as a trainer. I believe you said you flew RC helicopters somewhere, right? It's similar, but a little different. Also, you can fly the other 2 drones indoors when there is lousy weather, so it's useful even after you are used to how a larger drone handles.

Suffice to say, the shooter was justified. If it was as low as a shotgun could hit it effectively then it was good. If there are records substantiating that he had called the police before it only adds to this. That the drone owner and three friends confronted him in a threatening manner and almost trespassed to get to him then he had every right to make them aware he could defend himself. I am a big guy but if I have four guys coming at me, I am going to 'fear for my life' and open up on them too. Its called self defense and its every persons' right to use it. He warned them and they backed down, that was the correct use of force in that situation.

Also, while he did discharge a firearm inside city limits(which I find weird to be illegal coming from Florida) it was an effective weapon to use in this situation as unlike a bullet shooting rifle, a pellet will have very little force when it comes down. I have been hit duck hunting before from the guy across the pond(my dad in this case) and I actually had to think about what was raining on me. So yes he did do something minorly illegal, but he did choose the best tool for the job and the environment at hand, which is probably a mitigating factor on why he got off so lightly.

Shotgun ? Haha, that's cute.



I want this in my backyard.

+ Little force or not, discharging a firearm inside a city should be outlawed.

Well it might be a little overkill, but by my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I think you should be allowed to have it. I don't think it has the range even to pop a high flying Predator but hey, whatever floats your boat. They used 88s for things other than shooting planes too.