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.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Small model rockets, maybe a cluster fired at different trajectories, trailing anchored streamers of fishing line to foul the rotors and drag it down. Effective, silent, and not illegal (rockets of any size carrying ordnance being "wmds" when possessed by civilians).

That sounds like a good way to strangle yourself.

 Seaward wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Listen guys, These things will dominate hunter for a bit, maybe force them to buy a special gun that is only useful for this. But once more and more hunters get better and update equipment these drones will have less of a presence with maybe one being worrisome, with its ability to shoot fire everwhere.

Wut.

On another note, I doubt they actually intend to do this. It's too impractical.

Given what PETA has done in the past this isn't crazy at all.

 Seaward wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Listen guys, These things will dominate hunter for a bit, maybe force them to buy a special gun that is only useful for this. But once more and more hunters get better and update equipment these drones will have less of a presence with maybe one being worrisome, with its ability to shoot fire everwhere.

Wut.

On another note, I doubt they actually intend to do this. It's too impractical.

Its a joke about 40k and flyers.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Because a one-off incident of a terrorist organization's borderline illegal UAV allegedly being jammed and made to crash will totally result in any investigation, let alone one with both a helicopter and a time machine, since the only way to do what you're suggesting would be to be running the scanner at the location while it was going on.

Since when is it illegal to operate a small (well below the point where FAA regulations apply) RC plane with a camera attached over public land? There's nothing borderline at all about it, the only "problem" seems to be that hunters don't like it.

Also, I'm sure you'll find lots of people interested in buying/building a radio jammer, figuring out how to jam the drone, and then throw it away after using it exactly once. The simple fact is after the first incident makes them aware of the jammer it will be trivially easy to have someone with a directional antenna waiting for the hunters to be stupid enough to try it again.

Quotefail, and disabling an illegally operated UAV, piloted in a manner "that made you fear for your safety" with a legal device is totally equivalent to assault with a claw hammer, you're right.

Yeah, I'm sure you're really going to convince anyone that there was a legitimate threat to your safety that was best dealt with by improvising rockets with fishing line and trying to snare the prop. The moment you resort to such ineffective "safety" measures instead of getting out of there ASAP you've just proved beyond any doubt to a court that your goal was property damage not protecting yourself.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Because a one-off incident of a terrorist organization's borderline illegal UAV allegedly being jammed and made to crash will totally result in any investigation, let alone one with both a helicopter and a time machine, since the only way to do what you're suggesting would be to be running the scanner at the location while it was going on.

Since when is it illegal to operate a small (well below the point where FAA regulations apply) RC plane with a camera attached over public land? There's nothing borderline at all about it, the only "problem" seems to be that hunters don't like it.

Also, I'm sure you'll find lots of people interested in buying/building a radio jammer, figuring out how to jam the drone, and then throw it away after using it exactly once. The simple fact is after the first incident makes them aware of the jammer it will be trivially easy to have someone with a directional antenna waiting for the hunters to be stupid enough to try it again.

Quotefail, and disabling an illegally operated UAV, piloted in a manner "that made you fear for your safety" with a legal device is totally equivalent to assault with a claw hammer, you're right.

Yeah, I'm sure you're really going to convince anyone that there was a legitimate threat to your safety that was best dealt with by improvising rockets with fishing line and trying to snare the prop. The moment you resort to such ineffective "safety" measures instead of getting out of there ASAP you've just proved beyond any doubt to a court that your goal was property damage not protecting yourself.

It's legal to operate if you can see it from where you're piloting it from (from what was said/quoted in this thread), and we're talking about a terrorist organization here: they're not going to be flying it responsibly, they're going to be trolling and endangering people with it, and invading private property. When the scheme is antagonize people into shooting at the UAV, alternatives that aren't in and of themselves illegal, or which aren't traceable, should be proliferated, out of spite for PETA if nothing else.

And on their side, a jammer or another transmitter overriding theirs is going to be nothing but an unknown failure.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's legal to operate if you can see it from where you're piloting it from (from what was said/quoted in this thread), and we're talking about a terrorist organization here: they're not going to be flying it responsibly, they're going to be trolling and endangering people with it, and invading private property.

Oh please. If flying a RC helicopter without direct line of sight was anything more than a theoretical law they'd be arresting everyone who has ever flown a RC helicopter. Flying your RC camera platform through the camera instead of with direct line of sight doesn't make you a terrorist organization.

When the scheme is antagonize people into shooting at the UAV, alternatives that aren't in and of themselves illegal, or which aren't traceable, should be proliferated, out of spite for PETA if nothing else.

So let me get this straight: idiots get annoyed and recklessly shoot at stuff and it's the RC helicopter pilot's fault? Whatever happened to "ignore it and don't do illegal and extremely dangerous stuff"?

And on their side, a jammer or another transmitter overriding theirs is going to be nothing but an unknown failure.

Just keep telling yourself that.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
we're talking about a terrorist organization here

No, we're not. Words have meaning. Stop making gak up to prove your point.

By the way, for the genius that suggested using a radio jammer: Unlike flying a radio controlled aircraft over public property, operating a unlicensed radio jammer actually IS illegal in every state in this country. Enjoy your $112,500 fine.

Yes, I am aware a Jammer is illegal. What made you think this discussion and the suggestions were 100% serious.

 Ouze wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
we're talking about a terrorist organization here

No, we're not. Words have meaning. Stop making gak up to prove your point.

By the way, for the genius that suggested using a radio jammer: Unlike flying a radio controlled aircraft over public property, operating a unlicensed radio jammer actually IS illegal in every state in this country. Enjoy your $112,500 fine.

They've been known to support and fund groups labeled as eco terrorists by the US government, but I wouldn't call PETA ecoterrorists in and of themselves. They're either very oblivious to who they fund, or know full well and view them as a necessary evil.

On the whole "how to take out dem drones" stuff, I'm pretty sure 90% of these posts are in a joking manner.

You don't seriously think I'm going to start buying up RC planes and ramming them into drones... right?

Also, does anyone else find it hilariously ironic that PETA announces they're going to try and do something to stop hunters (illegal ones at least) and the first response from the hunting community is figuring out ways to hunt said device? I don't know if that says more about the futility of PETA's actions or just how crazy some hunters can be

Peregrine wrote:Flying your RC camera platform through the camera instead of with direct line of sight doesn't make you a terrorist organization.

Ouze wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
we're talking about a terrorist organization here

No, we're not. Words have meaning. Stop making gak up to prove your point.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about PETA here. The financial and propaganda branch of the most active and prolific domestic terrorist organizations in the US.

By the way, for the genius that suggested using a radio jammer: Unlike flying a radio controlled aircraft over public property, operating a unlicensed radio jammer actually IS illegal in every state in this country. Enjoy your $112,500 fine.

And unless it's a static piece installed in a building, there's effectively no chance anyone who matters would even realize one was operating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Also, does anyone else find it hilariously ironic that PETA announces they're going to try and do something to stop hunters (illegal ones at least) and the first response from the hunting community is figuring out ways to hunt said device? I don't know if that says more about the futility of PETA's actions or just how crazy some hunters can be

I don't hunt, and my first thought on seeing the thread title was "I'd sure love to hunt one of those UAV's with an anti-materiel rifle!" This progressed to some sort of compressed air netcanon as I read the thread, then someone mentions model rockets as improvised flak missiles and model rockets + fishing line streamers = fouled rotors and a smashed toy.

Not that I'll ever be in a position to hunt one, but still. Proliferation of countermeasures for the sake of spite and whatnot.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about PETA here. The financial and propaganda branch of the most active and prolific domestic terrorist organizations in the US.

So do you actually have any evidence that PETA are anything more than stupid and annoying? Because I hear the US government is really eager to make a big show out of arresting terrorists.

And unless it's a static piece installed in a building, there's effectively no chance anyone who matters would even realize one was operating.

Unless of course the people flying the drone aren't stupid and the second time you use your jammer they have someone watching for it and quickly realize that it's coming from the hunters they're documenting. One search warrant later and you've got a nice fine from the FCC.

PETA is careful not to cross the line, instead they support other organizations that do conduct terrorist activity.

But there is more political capital to be gained fighting external Terrorists who are a bigger threat than a homegrown organization, especially one that has a fair amount of public support and legitimacy(no matter how stupid or shaky)

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about PETA here. The financial and propaganda branch of the most active and prolific domestic terrorist organizations in the US.

So do you actually have any evidence that PETA are anything more than stupid and annoying? Because I hear the US government is really eager to make a big show out of arresting terrorists.

Animal rights activists form the most prolific category terrorist attacks in the US (or it did two or three years ago, at any rate). PETA has, in the past, engaged in these actions themselves, and has been caught openly funding them a number of times. They also form the largest sympathetic propaganda organization. It's only as much a misnomer as it would be applied to the Saudi Royals who back Salafist organizations.

And unless it's a static piece installed in a building, there's effectively no chance anyone who matters would even realize one was operating.

Unless of course the people flying the drone aren't stupid and the second time you use your jammer they have someone watching for it and quickly realize that it's coming from the hunters they're documenting. One search warrant later and you've got a nice fine from the FCC.

What second time? You think they'd entrust a second of their "several" UAVs to the idiots who crashed one? You think they'd run into the same people again, or that the 30 seconds it would take to knock one out would be enough time to triangulate a position through woods?

I wonder what, if any, security is on the things. A few years back you had insurgents "hacking" the US military unarmed UAVs with laptops running a program designed to allow unauthorized reception of satelite TV broadcasts. If someone seized control of a PETA UAV with a laptop, and crashed it into a lake or river, what would there be to suggest it wasn't just some idiot from PETA flying the thing negligently and losing their connection?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Animal rights activists form the most prolific category terrorist attacks in the US (or it did two or three years ago, at any rate). PETA has, in the past, engaged in these actions themselves, and has been caught openly funding them a number of times. They also form the largest sympathetic propaganda organization. It's only as much a misnomer as it would be applied to the Saudi Royals who back Salafist organizations.

So, if PETA has been caught openly funding terrorism then why do they still exist as an organization in a country that loves nothing more than arresting terrorists and sending them to secret prisons?

What second time? You think they'd entrust a second of their "several" UAVs to the idiots who crashed one? You think they'd run into the same people again, or that the 30 seconds it would take to knock one out would be enough time to triangulate a position through woods?

Yeah, because PETA's drone pilots are so stupid they don't know the difference between crashing a drone because the pilot screws up and crashing a drone because the control signal was suddenly jammed.

And yes, 30 seconds would easily be enough to locate the jammer if you're set up to do it as soon as the jamming starts, especially since you already know who is doing it and just need proof to get a search warrant and arrest them.

(I suppose you could in theory jam it from somewhere far away from the hunters the drone is observing, but then you're probably talking about power levels that require a large permanent antenna and would really get you in trouble with the FCC.)

I wonder what, if any, security is on the things. A few years back you had insurgents "hacking" the US military unarmed UAVs with laptops running a program designed to allow unauthorized reception of satelite TV broadcasts. If someone seized control of a PETA UAV with a laptop, and crashed it into a lake or river, what would there be to suggest it wasn't just some idiot from PETA flying the thing negligently and losing their connection?

Do your research better. The "hacking" wasn't taking control of a drone, it was just breaking the encryption on the video broadcast the drone sends out to everything in the area. That was entirely separate from the control signals for the drone, and much less secure since it had to be easily available to lots of people on the ground.

And yes, it's going to be pretty obvious if the drone suddenly stops obeying the pilot's commands and goes straight into the lake, especially since the default "no signal" behavior for a helicopter like that is almost certainly to just hover in place.

 Peregrine wrote:

So, if PETA has been caught openly funding terrorism then why do they still exist as an organization in a country that loves nothing more than arresting terrorists and sending them to secret prisons?

Why don't you ask the banana company that got caught paying terrorists protection money, and hiring them to keep their local workers in line? PETA funds the ALF and a laundry list of other organizations considered terrorists by the US government. Who knows why they're still around despite this; there's no doubt they shouldn't be.

Yeah, because PETA's drone pilots are so stupid they don't know the difference between crashing a drone because the pilot screws up and crashing a drone because the control signal was suddenly jammed.

And yes, 30 seconds would easily be enough to locate the jammer if you're set up to do it as soon as the jamming starts, especially since you already know who is doing it and just need proof to get a search warrant and arrest them.

(I suppose you could in theory jam it from somewhere far away from the hunters the drone is observing, but then you're probably talking about power levels that require a large permanent antenna and would really get you in trouble with the FCC.)

I'd love to play Vigilantes and Terrorists with you, in a somehow sillier reenactment of that Tau vs IG thing from a while back, but concocting scenarios wherein not only do you have some scumbags harassing civilians with a UAV, but also someone present who can jam or hack the thing, and also the scumbags are really just trying to catch the people jamming, is an infinitely escalating back and forth that can't be resolved because it's predicated on blind speculation and hypotheticals.

Do your research better. The "hacking" wasn't taking control of a drone, it was just breaking the encryption on the video broadcast the drone sends out to everything in the area. That was entirely separate from the control signals for the drone, and much less secure since it had to be easily available to lots of people on the ground.

Guess why I put "hacking" in quotation marks. They just tuned in with a laptop and some sketchy program.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I'd love to play Vigilantes and Terrorists with you, in a somehow sillier reenactment of that Tau vs IG thing from a while back, but concocting scenarios wherein not only do you have some scumbags harassing civilians with a UAV, but also someone present who can jam or hack the thing, and also the scumbags are really just trying to catch the people jamming, is an infinitely escalating back and forth that can't be resolved because it's predicated on blind speculation and hypotheticals.

I notice you missed the tiny little detail that radio jammers are illegal. Unlike the "crime" of flying a RC helicopter without direct line of sight (which happens about 30 seconds after someone takes their shiny new RC camera helicopter out of the box) operating unauthorized radio jamming is something that will get you into serious legal trouble with the FCC. And that's just the FCC, you'd also be in serious legal trouble for risking injury to people on the ground by deliberately making the drone lose control and crash. And then PETA sues you for destroying their property.

And the hypocrisy here is amazing: you're complaining about the "speculation" of someone losing an expensive camera drone to jamming and bringing a directional antenna to the next flight, but you're the one posting ridiculous scenarios about snaring a drone in 'self defense' with rockets and fishing line.

Guess why I put "hacking" in quotation marks. They just tuned in with a laptop and some sketchy program.

And the point is it had nothing to do with the controls for the drone, just a minimum-security video feed. That's entirely different from hijacking a drone and crashing it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
PETA is careful not to cross the line, instead they support other organizations that do conduct terrorist activity.

It is an American tradition.

 Peregrine wrote:

I notice you missed the tiny little detail that radio jammers are illegal. Unlike the "crime" of flying a RC helicopter without direct line of sight (which happens about 30 seconds after someone takes their shiny new RC camera helicopter out of the box) operating unauthorized radio jamming is something that will get you into serious legal trouble with the FCC. And that's just the FCC, you'd also be in serious legal trouble for risking injury to people on the ground by deliberately making the drone lose control and crash. And then PETA sues you for destroying their property.

And the hypocrisy here is amazing: you're complaining about the "speculation" of someone losing an expensive camera drone to jamming and bringing a directional antenna to the next flight, but you're the one posting ridiculous scenarios about snaring a drone in 'self defense' with rockets and fishing line.

Actually, I'm saying the whole conversation is silly and predicated on hypotheticals and one-up-manship, on both sides. It's not a winnable debate because it can escalate infinitely with more specific and absurdly unlikely hypothetical situations to justify either side.

You've really got to lighten up and relax: you bring such a palpable rage to even the silliest arguments.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Actually, I'm saying the whole conversation is silly and predicated on hypotheticals and one-up-manship, on both sides. It's not a winnable debate because it can escalate infinitely with more specific and absurdly unlikely hypothetical situations to justify either side.

Of course it's winnable, we can just wait until some idiot tries jamming a drone and discovers how much legal trouble you can get in by doing it. Which isn't hypothetical, by the way, a quick google search will give you some nice stories about idiots trying to jam RC planes and getting into serious legal trouble because they're not as sneaky as they thought.

And it's funny how conversations become "silly and hypothetical" once you lose them.

 Peregrine wrote:
And it's funny how conversations become "silly and hypothetical" once you lose them.

It's a conversion that's included calls for depleted uranium shotgun shells, RC Kamikazes, fireworks and model rockets as tiny flak missiles, and you think a back and forth in which the abilities, preparation, and outright coincidence for either hypothetical party escalate every round is somehow (and which included suggestions for model rocket assisted fishing for drones) a sober topic for debate?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's a conversion that's included calls for depleted uranium shotgun shells, RC Kamikazes, fireworks and model rockets as tiny flak missiles, and you think a back and forth in which the abilities, preparation, and outright coincidence for either hypothetical party escalate every round is somehow (and which included suggestions for model rocket assisted fishing for drones) a sober topic for debate?

I don't know, you seemed pretty serious in defending your ideas until it became obvious to everyone but you that they were completely ridiculous.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's a conversion that's included calls for depleted uranium shotgun shells, RC Kamikazes, fireworks and model rockets as tiny flak missiles, and you think a back and forth in which the abilities, preparation, and outright coincidence for either hypothetical party escalate every round is somehow (and which included suggestions for model rocket assisted fishing for drones) a sober topic for debate?

I don't know, you seemed pretty serious in defending your ideas until it became obvious to everyone but you that they were completely ridiculous.

You have that effect on people. Then I realized we'd had this exact argument before, if you swap out UAVs and jammers for tigersharks and titans, took a step back, and realized what a ridiculous argument I'd just leapt into.


And the funniest thing is, I honestly couldn't care less about anyone actually hunting the things, but I would egg them on regardless of the consequences to them just because it would be funny for PETA's fancy little toys to get smashed, and arguing over the best ways someone could smash them is a fun conversation to have, unlike arguing over whether they'd get away with it or not (which IRL would rely entirely on luck of the draw, but here we can only ascribe ever greater awareness and ability to either side in a conflict that can escalate indefinitely).

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
(which IRL would rely entirely on luck of the draw, but here we can only ascribe ever greater awareness and ability to either side in a conflict that can escalate indefinitely).

There's no indefinite chain of escalation. Once you figure out the obvious, that someone is using a radio jammer, it's not that hard to spot. You don't need magic awareness about the other side, just basic competence and some simple equipment. After all, you already know exactly who jammed your drone, you just need to collect enough evidence to prove it in court. That is, if you can't convince a court to issue a search warrant over the obvious use of a jammer (complete with video evidence) with the first drone and skip straight to the "arrested and fined by the FCC" part.

Again, do a quick google search on the subject and you'll find out that "idiot thinks it would be funny to jam RC planes, ends up in serious legal trouble" isn't just a hypothetical.

Isn't any footage they take illegal to use in court anyway due to it being taken in secret?

Also: PETA isn't a terrorist organziation. That's a special term. PETA simply is a bunch of humanity-hating idiots.

 Peregrine wrote:

Since when is deliberate property damage not illegal? Am I allowed to use a hammer to smash the windows in your car because I don't like your political bumper sticker? After all, I'm not using any kind of illegal weapon to do it.

They are tresspassing against property. They have no claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, I am aware a Jammer is illegal. What made you think this discussion and the suggestions were 100% serious.

I'm totally serious. If someone gets me a quad .50 cal with ammo (ammo's the problem these days) I will totally shoot down any PETA drone that comes around. I am totally serial!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And it's funny how conversations become "silly and hypothetical" once you lose them.

It's a conversion that's included calls for depleted uranium shotgun shells, RC Kamikazes, fireworks and model rockets as tiny flak missiles, and you think a back and forth in which the abilities, preparation, and outright coincidence for either hypothetical party escalate every round is somehow (and which included suggestions for model rocket assisted fishing for drones) a sober topic for debate?

This thread is taking a turn for serious. You guys are messing with my fireworks fueld buzz here.

Another idea. A set up of Roman candles on a turn table setup. Also attached will be two IPOD speakers, which will of course be playing the mandatory ride of the Valkyries.
Dah dah dah dah DAH DAH WHOOSHWHOOSHWHOOSHWHOOSH!

Alternatively if its windy we could hook up a wiener dog to a kite. It wil be the first launch of our new new SAW (Surface to Air Wienerdog). Come on, you know you want to...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
(which IRL would rely entirely on luck of the draw, but here we can only ascribe ever greater awareness and ability to either side in a conflict that can escalate indefinitely).

There's no indefinite chain of escalation. Once you figure out the obvious, that someone is using a radio jammer, it's not that hard to spot. You don't need magic awareness about the other side, just basic competence and some simple equipment. After all, you already know exactly who jammed your drone, you just need to collect enough evidence to prove it in court. That is, if you can't convince a court to issue a search warrant over the obvious use of a jammer (complete with video evidence) with the first drone and skip straight to the "arrested and fined by the FCC" part.

Again, do a quick google search on the subject and you'll find out that "idiot thinks it would be funny to jam RC planes, ends up in serious legal trouble" isn't just a hypothetical.

You're about a nine on the tension scale there Vern. Why don't you take it private. This thread is about shotguns and PETA drones. Faux Rage is on thread three, just down the hall.

 AlexHolker wrote:
\

 CptJake wrote:
DU rounds would be REALLY expensive...

Depleted uranium is a waste product. It's what's left once you take the fissile uranium out.

Which does not negate my comment. DU is hard to machine, the waste is an EPA nightmare, and as a waste product of uranium it is still expensive to get the material you need to make the projectile. Which is why current DU rounds (and other products made from DU) are pretty rare and expensive.

Other ideas;

Catapults/giant slingshots full of fireworks for a really heavy flakfield.

Once the flight path is established, everyone in the hunting party work on bending a tree down to the ground acme style and whipping it into the thing, making it stop in its place with a hilarious 'dong' noise, and little UAV's circle around it's camera.

Same thing as option two but launch a member of your hunting party at it.

Same thing as option three but launch an animal you caught at it (some kind of pest, whatever your equivalent to a feral pig is...probably a feral pig)

Erect a giant pane of glass around your acreage without anyone noticing, and have it so clean that nothing reflects off of it/distorts through it. Let the drone fly into it.

Train a bald eagle to hunt UAVs. Bring hawking back, but more in line with these high-tech, modern times.

That's all off the top of my head.

More suggestions;

1. Start dressing up as Sasquatch and then wait for PETA to capture you on tape and start a campaign to save you. Rinse and repeat with other mythical creatures.

2. Stage a body dump complete with shallow grave and fake body (unless you have dead hookers you need to get rid of).

3. Film low budget slasher flicks on your land. If PETA don't phone the police (pretty likely as they only care about animal suffering) then ask PETA for the aerial footage.

4. Breed endangered birds and release them in the vicinity of the UAV forcing PETA to back off or face the bad publicity from maiming/killing them

5. Dress up as Elmer Fudd, have a friend dress up as Bugs Bunny and hunt him with a paintball gun (or hire a hooker and hunt for real - this leads us nicely back to 2 above)




For the record, and the humourless, I do not condone violence against sex workers

If they actually launch this program I'm getting a saquatch costume and heading for their nearest intending filming site.