Killer drone for $200..

[barfbag]

We have been watching and playing with personal drones for the past decade. I even have a toy helicopter to play with.

 

There is now talk of having pizza's delivered via drone, although I expect every kid with a BB Gun is holding his breath for that day.

 

Here is something nobody talks about. Lets pretend you buy a Drone with a 30 minute battery capacity. What is to prevent you from adding photo recognition to the camera and a tiny sawed off shotgun type attachment.

 

People will be able to kill each other simply by showing a photo to a machine and sending it off in the right direction or hover in your driveway. All of this technology exists and has likely been done in the military.

 

Imagine a drone with the image of Osama Bin Laden or some such critter.

 

The potential exists that in the future I (Anyone) could simply copy your profile picture and send my drone to your address or city to search for you (much longer battery life needed for that), or I could simply launch it from a kilometer away as it is now.

 

Anyways. This thought is recurring and yet I have yet to see anybody discuss it on television or elsewhere.

 

IDK, maybe this is an ethics debate.. (Mods move thread if you find a better spot).

Edited June 17, 2014 by barfbag

[Acme]

I immediately thought of the hunter-seekers in Herbert's Dune. Searching that term I found an article from several years ago relating hunter-seekers to your drones and at 1/8 the price.

 

This tiny RC copter is available from Thinkgeek for $50 and would work perfectly to administer a dose of lethal poison to a sleeping kwisatz haderach. If you dont know what Im talking about, its time to read you some Dune!

source

[pwagen]

I don't think a drone would be the cheapest, simplest or most discrete way of killing anyone. With all the technology from the past 150 years, I doubt adding one more gadget would noticeably add to the murder rates.

 

Also, I'm not sure drones are sturdy enough to handle the recoil from a projectile weapon. Here's a typical tricopter, a common drone for hobbyists.

 

http://www.villalachouette.de/william/krims/tricopter/websitepics/tricopter_dlx_detail0.jpg

 

Considering they can barely handle a bit of wind, a shotgun recoil seems out of the question.

[barfbag]

@ Acme..

 

Yes. I have a toy Helicopter I use to torment my dog on occasion that looks just like that. It was a gift but I'd bet $50 was a close guesstimate.

 

Funny.

 

@ Pwagen,

 

I don't think a drone would be the cheapest, simplest or most discrete way of killing anyone. With all the technology from the past 150 years, I doubt adding one more gadget would noticeably add to the murder rates.

 

 

 

This is true, but you would not need to look the person in the face as you kill them and could have a good alibi as you cruise the Mediterranean.

 

Also, I'm not sure drones are sturdy enough to handle the recoil from a projectile weapon.

 

 

In today's age it would likely be caught on a camera anyhow so you would not want it to recover. It has to make one shot into the persons head and then it could blow up as far as the murderer is concerned. You could even explode it to kill the person/people on purpose.

 

Naturally you would not want your fingerprints or DNA all over the thing anyways.

 

Why would you want it to last past the shooting? Maybe it would confuse the police though if it were able to limp a few miles away to a lake and sink itself.

 

I suppose you get what you pay for though, and my cheap $200 version could be replaced with a more stable version depending on what you want and your bankbook. I'm sure if they can make Helicopters capable of 50 caliber weapons a drone can be made that can handle a single 9mm round or shotgun blast.

 

I looked at your link. That is one of the least sturdy drones I have ever seen.

 

Here it is...

 

 

Look at an average Craigslist drone for under $200. Most of them look a lot sturdier than the one you found. How did you even find that photo? Did you search for "Lamest Drone ever"? No insult to manufacturer intended it's cute and functional for hobbyists, but not murder.

Average Craigslist drones ....

http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=drone

 

Killing someone via drone also removes the need to watch it. It becomes a lot less personal. I think we will see it happen frequently enough in 20 years that drones sales become licensed. Maybe not. IDK.. It's possible It's also possible in 20 years mankind might not exist so who knows.

 

Note: This is only a discussion. I'm not selling drones.. lol

Edited June 18, 2014 by barfbag

[Acme]

Although I was reminded fondly of Dune, I find it chagrining to see so much effort invested in imagining yet another way to kill people.

[barfbag]

@ Acme,

 

Yes. It has been a thought bothering me as well. I'm not trying to endorse it. I just envision the possibilities and think pizza delivery might not be the only thing it delivers.

 

I wouldn't hurt a fly. I am also an animal lover and have trained my Jack Russell quite well. I could walk in heavy traffic with no leash and my dog will happily remain at my side. She is beside me now.

 

I did not think of killer drones. The military uses the everyday. I just see it coming here soon enough.

 

I enjoy future trends in science and keep up with some fringe elements. I also enjoy writing (you may have noticed), and try to envision the future.

 

I understand your concern.

[Roamer]

I can buy a knife for €5 and kill someone.

Unless the drone is going to make it particularly hard for the police to find me, i ain't buying.

 

PS: they're already widely used, but usually their use is kept away from mainstream media as people mighy oppose the slaughter of other people.

[Endy0816]

IMO non-military drone attacks are not likely to use guns.

[barfbag]

@ Endy,

 

Then what would they use to attack? Explosion maybe?

 

@ Roamer,

 

Yeah.. but would you rather stab someone or have them killed by a robot when you're 100 miles away. I just worry it might be too easy and less scarring on the assailant.

Edited June 18, 2014 by barfbag

[Endy0816]

Acids, compressed air shot poisons/toxins, incendiaries, explosives. It really doesn't take that much. Less obvious stuff you can do depending on your target and their environment.

[pwagen]

Did you search for "Lamest Drone ever"?

While I know this forum doesn't have an age restriction, I expect the discussions here to be civil and mature. Think you could kick it up a notch in the future?

 

In today's age it would likely be caught on a camera anyhow so you would not want it to recover. It has to make one shot into the persons head and then it could blow up as far as the murderer is concerned. You could even explode it to kill the person/people on purpose.

 

Why would you want it to last past the shooting? Maybe it would confuse the police though if it were able to limp a few miles away to a lake and sink itself.

Just because it "survives" shooting a projectile doesn't mean it's stable enough to aim it. If a bullet has enough power to actually penetrate something, you can be sure it's left quite a recoil.

 

I looked at your link. That is one of the least sturdy drones I have ever seen.

 

Look at an average Craigslist drone for under $200. Most of them look a lot sturdier than the one you found.

Your link certainly doesn't have any. Feel free to link a specific drone.

 

No insult to manufacturer intended it's cute and functional for hobbyists, but not murder.

Surprisingly, I think you'll find that the majority of drones are in fact not made for murder.

[barfbag]

@ Pwagen,

 

 

 

Did you search for "Lamest Drone ever"?

While I know this forum doesn't have an age restriction, I expect the discussions here to be civil and mature. Think you could kick it up a notch in the future?

 

 

This was out of context and is somewhat Straw Man. It is Straw Man because it implies I was being insulting and hurt the drones feelings. Here is what was actually said,

Look at an average Craigslist drone for under $200. Most of them look a lot sturdier than the one you found. How did you even find that photo? Did you search for "Lamest Drone ever"? No insult to manufacturer intended it's cute and functional for hobbyists, but not murder.

Average Craigslist drones ....

http://newyork.craig...sss?query=drone

 

 

Things sound different when they are in context. I even apologized to the manufacturer/hobbyist who made it.

 

For the record though. This was the drone I referred to as lame.

 

 

you say,

I know this forum doesn't have an age restriction,

 

 

So there is an ad hominem attack suggesting because I think the drone is lame I am under 18. It is what it is..

 

In today's age it would likely be caught on a camera anyhow so you would not want it to recover. It has to make one shot into the persons head and then it could blow up as far as the murderer is concerned. You could even explode it to kill the person/people on purpose.

Why would you want it to last past the shooting? Maybe it would confuse the police though if it were able to limp a few miles away to a lake and sink itself.

Just because it "survives" shooting a projectile doesn't mean it's stable enough to aim it. If a bullet has enough power to actually penetrate something, you can be sure it's left quite a recoil.

 

 

Even a lame drone could blow up beside someone, but if you think drones are not capable of shooting a bullet or a poison dart and/or exploding then you are simply under informed. Obviously drones would come in many shapes/sizes and quantities, why would you argue they are incapable of shootings. Helicopters can fire 50 cal rifles and they stay in the air. So we take your drone and double its size, what's the problem?

 

I even went out of my way to demonstrate what average drones look like. What better way to find an average drone than with Craigslist. So I gave him a nice link full of todays craigslist ads so he could see his drone was far below average.

 

Quote

I looked at your link. That is one of the least sturdy drones I have ever seen.

Look at an average Craigslist drone for under $200. Most of them look a lot sturdier than the one you found.

Your link certainly doesn't have any. Feel free to link a specific drone.

 

 

Really? I will post the VERY FIRST TWO from that ad page I linked.

 

I will let others decide which looks more stable.

 

Here is the link again that I gave you,

http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=drone

 

Now let's look at the first drone on that page...

 

 

Not bad.. A nice little quadcopter with camera attached. $150..

 

So is it true my link did not have any nicer, more stable looking drones? The one you linked to (picture in this post) is a tricopter and looks much more fragile.

 

Let's look at the second drone from that craigslist link...

 

Also a nice little camera quadcopter. It also looks less fragile than the one you found. Honestly I searched drones a few times and cannot find any that are as weak looking as the one you linked to.

 

No insult to manufacturer intended it's cute and functional for hobbyists, but not murder.

Surprisingly, I think you'll find that the majority of drones are in fact not made for murder.

 

 

 

 

This is a perfect example of Straw Man argument. You imply that I believe most drones are made for the purpose of murder, and then you tear down that Straw Man by stating a common known fact.

 

I do not even believe most Military Drones are used for murder. Most military drones are used for Surveillance and mapping.

 

So your post 11 contains out of context quotes, ad hominem attacks, and even a few Straw man arguments for good measure.

 

Do I think you are being serious here? No. I think you are trolling over what occurred in another thread a few hours ago, but it is possible you are just under informed and ad hominem/Straw man attacks are just in your nature.

 

Others can decide..

Edited June 18, 2014 by barfbag

[pwagen]

(Note to others. Pwagen appears miffed about another thread however I will respond politely).

As far as I know, I'm not involved in any other threads where you have also posted. If I am, I suggest not bringing other topics here.

 

Really? I will post the VERY FIRST TWO from that ad page I linked.

I saw those. One is about 10 cm long, by the looks of it, so won't be able to lift the required payload. The other is $1000, so not relevant to the topic even if it is able to lift the weight of a weapon, which I doubt (but won't be able to check until I'm off work.

 

Any other examples?

 

Further, it seems you're only discussing this topic in order to "win", which is obvious considering your "Dear ladies and gentlemen, welcome to tonight's show" approach. I'm not sure how fruitful such a discussion would be, but I'd suggest discussing the topic instead of throwing around accusations of logical fallacies.

[Greg H.]

How about a drone that can "detain" you with 80kv of electricity?

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/03/meet-stun-gun-drone-shoots-first-and-doesnt-ask-questions-later/358994/

From the article:

[The drone] can find a subject and it can send you live video to a phone and ask you whether it should authorize a subject or detain them. If you elect to detain a subject, the drone drops into fully autonomous mode, where it can detain a subject until police arrive, if need be stunning them with 80,000 volts of electricity to render them incapacitated.

[barfbag]

@ Greg H,

 

That is interesting. So it is fast enough to keep a subject at bay.. like a little robocop.

 

@ Post 13 / Pwagen,

 

Further, it seems you're only discussing this topic in order to "win", which is obvious considering your "Dear ladies and gentlemen, welcome to tonight's show" approach. I'm not sure how fruitful such a discussion would be, but I'd suggest discussing the topic instead of throwing around accusations of logical fallacies.

 

 

Huh? What would I win?

 

you're only discussing this topic in order to "win"

 

 

I started this thread because I find the topic interesting. I am discussing in this thread because I started it.

 

What do I win by the way? Something good I hope.

 

considering your "Dear ladies and gentlemen, welcome to tonight's show" approach.

 

 

Heeeeeeeeeeeeere's Barf Bag! (sorry it's hard to do Ed MvMahon in type).

 

I am unsure what this means but it seem to be intended as an insult.

 

your post 11 contains out of context quotes, ad hominem attacks, and even a few Straw man arguments for good measure as I noted in my last post and gave examples. This seems to be a continuation.

 

Please try to be civil. You are the only person who has been rude in this thread. Everyone else has been nice including me.

[pwagen]

You brought up two drones, the first of which fits comfortably in the palm of a hand. Any chance you could comment on its stability? I don't mind if you compare it to the one I linked. Here's another picture for size comparison:

http://www.robotshop.com/blog/en/files/Hubsan-FPV-Mini-05.jpg

 

Can you tell me the procedure of mounting a projectile weapon to a drone that's about twice the size of a USB memory? How much would that weigh? What would happen when you fire the weapon?

 

Would you acknowledge my request of seeing other examples of drones for less than $200 which would be able to be fitted with anything weight about as much as the weapon type you were planning to use?

[Phi for All]

Please try to be civil. You are the only person who has been rude in this thread. Everyone else has been nice including me.

 

!

Moderator Note

It isn't rude to point out mistakes in an idea, or in an argumentative methodology. It's what we do here, hopefully without attacking the person who had the idea. Disagreement isn't an uncivil action.

 

If you have problems with this modtip, don't bring it up in this thread, just Report it.

[barfbag]

@ pwagen,

 

Start with this video...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A8mErds5-c

 

Maybe this one is better..

 

It addresses all your concerns and uses tiny drones like the tiny cheapest versions

Then see post 14 video by GregH.

 

If you dislike the $150 new model so much save up $200 and buy a used one. I picked $200 as an arbitrary figure, but I'm sure you can find something sturdy enough to fire a shot at that range.

 

YOU CAN SAVE A LOT IF YOU ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO BUILD YOUR OWN....

 

Have you ever seen a pen gun? Simply attach one of those to any size drone (even yours) and it could get a shot off by remote.

 

I am sure you will want me to build one and demonstrate it for you but that will likely not happen anytime soon.

 

 

Here is a cheaper one for $125 from same link I gave you,

 

Watch video... looks fairly stable to me.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urEQqEhWvVQ

 

Cheers..

 

Fun video related to stability,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tZq6lAL4dg

Edited June 18, 2014 by barfbag

[InigoMontoya]

With the exception of the automated target recognition aspect, what's being proposed has been actively studied by the military for the past ten years that I'm aware of. Not much new here

[barfbag]

@ InogoMontoya,

 

The military has been using drones for decades (more than 10 years). This topic concerns the idea killer drones may soon be very cheap. A drone with facial recognition could soon (20 years or less) be the weapon of choice for gangs, or used for home invasions and robbery.

 

If the Military is keeping up with Civilian killing hardware then that's something at least.

[swansont]

This reminds me of what Bruce Schneier calls a movie-plot threat, except it's not specifically incorporating terrorism. But it has the other hallmarks: it's a manufactured threat (not realistic), and any likely response, should someone take it seriously, will be security theater.

 

People use a lot of peripheral technologies to aid in killing. What are we to do — ban cars, because killers use cars, and ban cell phones, because killers use cell phones?

[barfbag]

What are we to do — ban cars, because killers use cars, and ban cell phones, because killers use cell phones?

 

 

I missed the Cell Phone Killer rampage, but I imagine if you live for another 30 years you will see actions taken to license drone use because of violence.

 

If a Killer uses a car he will be prevented from driving again if possible.

 

This reminds me of what Bruce Schneier calls a movie-plot threat, except it's not specifically incorporating terrorism.

 

 

 

I said in the Opening Post this might make a better ethics debate as the Engineering aspects have all been solved.

 

I have more of a problem understanding how anyone claiming intelligence cannot view the drone possibilities in our future.

 

I imagine killing someone would be as easy with a knife in some cases, but killers like guns because there is physical distance between the combatants. To kill someone in the Dark Ages you would need to carve into them with a blade. Killing is becoming easier for the private individual.

 

Soon I might be able to dispatch a tiny fleet of drones from my garage that will hunt for you based on your latest profile pic simply by hitting F12.

 

This makes it easier to kill, and may also have less crossfire. Maybe less kids would be shot everyday if gangs started using drones that shoot the target instead of pointing the guns themselves through playgrounds.

 

If you think Drone attacks will not rise in popularity among civilians then feel free to say so. I think it is misguided, but let's hear it. How can it not become popular?

Edited July 2, 2014 by barfbag

[swansont]

I missed the Cell Phone Killer rampage, but I imagine if you live for another 30 years you will see actions taken to license drone use because of violence.

Killers have never used cell phones? A "rampage" of 1 would make it more of a crime wave than copter drones with sawed off shotguns.

 

Curbs? Because of all the efforts we take to curb violence? The only reason your prediction has validity is because the US won't seemingly do anything to restrict the actual guns. OTOH, it's already illegal to kill people. Making it more illegal will likely have no effect. (But again, in the US that's moot)

 

If a Killer uses a car he will be prevented from driving again if possible.

Evidence that convicted killers can't get car licenses is? (this is the part where you provide a link, because bald assertion doesn't cut it)

 

Preventing a convict from some actions is not what you seem to be proposing with the OP; you are insisting on a much wider course of action. Even though vehicular manslaughter/homicide is a thing, there doesn't seem to be any general curb on the availability of cars.

 

I said in the Opening Post this might make a better ethics debate as the Engineering aspects have all been solved.

 

I have more of a problem understanding how anyone claiming intelligence cannot view the drone possibilities in our future.

Quite the opposite. I see them, and they are ridiculous. Using an RC vehicle as an instrument of death is literally a movie plot threat. In the 25 years afterwards, has there been a rash of RC car bombs? Have we banned RC cars as a result?

 

I imagine killing someone would be as easy with a knife in some cases, but killers like guns because there is physical distance between the combatants. To kill someone in the Dark Ages you would need to carve into them with a blade. Killing is becoming easier for the private individual.

 

Soon I might be able to dispatch a tiny fleet of drones from my garage that will hunt for you based on your latest profile pic simply by hitting F12.

 

This makes it easier to kill, and may also have less crossfire. Maybe less kids would be shot everyday if gangs started using drones that shoot the target instead of pointing the guns themselves through playgrounds.

 

If you think Drone attacks will not rise in popularity among civilians then feel free to say so. I think it is misguided, but let's hear it. How can it not become popular?

 

It's misguided. Almost 3,000 people a month are killed by guns; almost 1000 of these are homicides. It's ridiculous to be focusing on the possibility that someone might use this particular method to kill someone, and then fixate on the method. It's even more shortsighted that the TSA's skate-to-where-the puck-was approach of stopping the last specific hijacking attempt. This is skating into the seats thinking that the puck might ricochet up there.

 

To "rise in popularity" would only take one killing, so that's a sucker's bet, but that's not the same as "becoming popular". It's up to you to make the case that this is a viable option over what people do today, and keep in mind how wrong so much marketing of products is. Lots of can't-miss products miss. You're overselling the ease, for one. You need to show that facial recognition is where you claim it to be, and are ignoring that these (as shown in the paintball video) are short-range devices that need two operators; one to fly and one to shoot. This doesn't remove you very far from the scene of the crime and it's not easier than other methods. A recipe for non-adoption.

[barfbag]

@ Swans on Tea,

Evidence that convicted killers can't get car licenses is? (this is the part where you provide a link, because bald assertion doesn't cut it)

 

 

 

That's too bad then for you. In my country if a killer used a car to kill or injure a variety of traffic violations Reckless Driving, Driving under the influence, Speeding, running red lights, Manslaughter, etc.

 

We take dangerous drivers off the road.

 

If your countries allow killers who kill with cars to drive again then try discussing that with a politician, and maybe you can get them fixed.

 

It's ridiculous to be focusing on the possibility that someone might use this particular method to kill someone, and then fixate on the method.

 

 

 

Why is discussing this "fixating"?

 

ou're overselling the ease, for one. You need to show that facial recognition is where you claim it to be, and are ignoring that these (as shown in the paintball video) are short-range devices that need two operators; one to fly and one to shoot. This doesn't remove you very far from the scene of the crime and it's not easier than other methods. A recipe for non-adoption.

 

 

If you are going to make predictions about the future you need to update your thinking. Facial recognition is fast growing in the private sector and you will be forced to wear a mask to the mall if you don't want mannequin's or animations talking to you. I suppose it is natural you did not know this, but Facial recognition software is abundant and not hard to use.

 

You can even get Facial Recognition to Lock your phone or Computer.

 

 

 

Quite the opposite. I see them, and they are ridiculous. Using an RC vehicle as an instrument of death is literally a movie plot threat. In the 25 years afterwards, has there been a rash of RC car bombs? Have we banned RC cars as a result?

 

I've seen ridiculous RC cars in movies that are supposedly as fast as street cars. It is a fun idea I suppose.

 

I do not see them as much of a threat as you seem to deem them worthy. I have never heard of the Military deploying drone/RC land based vehicles for murderous intent although I'm sure they must have them.

 

Flying drones on the other hand can operate from a position of impunity because of their flying abilities.

 

 

You need to show that facial recognition is where you claim it to be

 

Okay, here is a link showing Facial Recognition and Drones are already compatible,

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-09/army-wants-drones-can-recognize-your-face-and-read-your-mind

 

How did I misconstrue the abilities of FR software?

 

Plotting a search grid with a land based vehicle is intrinsically harder than programming a search grid in a flying drone. Have you ever seen that little Japanese Robot that's always at shows? It takes them days of programming just to get it to move for 20 seconds.

 

It's ridiculous to be focusing on the possibility that someone might use this particular method

 

 

So when should this idea be discussed? The day after a terrorist cell launches 10 000 exploding $100 drones on City Hall, or targets police uniforms and cars, or targets children? Perhaps it might be too little too late.

 

We are talking about a method of murder that is commonplace with the military.

 

Under the Air Vehicles Directorate branch of the US Air Force, research is being conducted to perfect remote-controlled micro air vehicles (MAVs) that are expected to "become a vital element in the ever-changing war-fighting environment and will help ensure success on the battlefield of the future."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045495_assassination_drones_autonomous_killing_facial_recognition.html#ixzz36M7i12Te

 

That links to an article where they are building this topic (Not RC car versions sorry).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7M0ErhprN4#t=166

Edited July 2, 2014 by barfbag

[Bill Angel]

These inexpensive drones all require a pilot to steer them, I assume. It would not seem that difficult to incorporate navigation via GPS satellites into these drones, which would allow them to be used to deliver a cargo like a bomb or an air bourne toxin to a building, automatically. No human operator piloting them would I think make their origins more difficult to trace.