Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

arrl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#71

Post by can16358p »

behringer wrote: post #68
midev wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extremely bad to be messing with those frequencies. Potentially catastrophic. If someone with a hobby electronics kit can cause that much damage, the system needs to change. Hobby projects like this can help expose the serious flaws in aircraft control, making us all safer. Security by obscurity is no security at all. Security by hoping people don't do bad things is even worse.

Youre expected not to board a plane with a bomb and youre expected to not operate equipment on wrong frequencies that interfere with others. Just because you can do something does not mean its ok to do.

I think what the comment is about is that the system should be built safer with less security with obscurity but more actual measures. You can (partially) scan people getting onto the plane for bombs etc but it's practically very hard to pinpoint a jamming RF transmitter possibly from kilometers away from ground. Security shouldn't rely on those frequencies being clear.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#72

Post by fencepost »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #29
duskwuff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IIRC these switches were not user accessible. They were definitely user accessible in at least some of the products. Here are a couple of the devices named in the FCC complaint which obviously had exposed DIP switches: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/aomway-700tvl-cmos-hd-camera-nts... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/1-2ghz-mg-500mw-8ch-a-v-wireless... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/x40-l-25mw-tx-cnc-alloy-cas.html There were…

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

My initial thought was also that it sounded excessive, until I got to the parts about interfering with assorted Air Traffic Control frequencies, only 1 of the 7 possible selectable bands being legal for use, broadcasting (in reserved bands!) at higher power than allowed for the device type, selling 65 other noncompliant products, claiming that the constitution protected them from having to respond and refusing to agree to more than "We'll try not to do it again but no promises."

After that, throw the book at them. I'm amazed they didn't claim that the FCC had no jurisdiction because they only recognize county sheriffs as authorities.

After all, what could possibly go wrong with remote controlled flying transmitters that interfere with GPS AND ATC navigation systems?

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#73

Post by colechristensen »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #29
duskwuff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IIRC these switches were not user accessible. They were definitely user accessible in at least some of the products. Here are a couple of the devices named in the FCC complaint which obviously had exposed DIP switches: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/aomway-700tvl-cmos-hd-camera-nts... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/1-2ghz-mg-500mw-8ch-a-v-wireless... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/x40-l-25mw-tx-cnc-alloy-cas.html There were…

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

With generic equipment like an SDR which requires one to specifically do many things to break the law.

However having a piece of unlicensed radio equipment for use with unlicensed operators which has essentially a “flip this switch to break the law” the situation is quite different.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#74

Post by kortilla »

Syonyk wrote: post #51
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I advocate it, but I can see why they are trying to skirt the rules. It’s tough now as a consumer to just order LiPos for a reasonable price and trust that they aren’t going to be a risk of catching on fire. HobbyKing is one of the few LiPo vendors right now that have managed to achieve trustworthy B2C LiPo batteries at a reasonable price point. I’m guessing they are really trying to maintain that position.

It sucks more when your unlabeled, poorly packed batteries catch fire and take down cargo planes. It sucks even more when they take down passenger airlines, because a lot of mail is shipped in the bellies of passenger flights - and if it's not labeled as prohibited for air transport, you have no idea how it gets from A to B. Different carriers have different regulations, and you can legally ship small lithium cells (…

> It sucks even more when they take down passenger airlines

They haven’t ever been known to “take down” a.k.a crash a passenger airline: https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/resources/lithium_batteries/media...

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#75

Post by labster »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #29
duskwuff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IIRC these switches were not user accessible. They were definitely user accessible in at least some of the products. Here are a couple of the devices named in the FCC complaint which obviously had exposed DIP switches: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/aomway-700tvl-cmos-hd-camera-nts... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/1-2ghz-mg-500mw-8ch-a-v-wireless... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/x40-l-25mw-tx-cnc-alloy-cas.html There were…

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

If it were a product for licensed radio operators, sure it’s up to the user. But for the general public, it’s really not appropriate for them to be able to flip a switch that breaks international law, and have an elite Dutch police team haul them off for trial in The Hague. Even if that does sound awesome.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#76

Post by tdeck »

jlarocco wrote: post #46
R0b0t1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

It is up to the end user to not break the law. But... > In its earlier Forfeiture Order, the FCC said it had made clear that “[d]evices used in the Amateur Radio Service do not require authorization prior to being imported into the United States, but “if such equipment can operate in amateur and non-amateur frequencies, it must be certified prior to marketing and operation.” The FCC investigation found that 65 models…

Just to add more context to this - it's easy to create a radio device that outputs RF on frequencies outside the intended range. This is one of the main reasons we have the certification requirements to begin with. It would be bad enough to do it by mistake, but these things do it by design.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#77

Post by tdeck »

triactual wrote: post #23
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but having them directly correlate to reserved frequencies is beyond the pale. The whole point of this cheapo hardware is that it can be used for whatever just by setting switches and therefore achieves massive economies of scale. They sell the same hardware to the drone makers and the radio makers and so on. IIRC these switches were not user accessible. The manufacturer set them in the right position.

No, dip switches are for end user configuration. Radio modules use firmware or other semipermanent and non-user accessible configuration to set frequency bands which is usually for regionalization. There isn’t really a use case for transmitting in global navigation bands outside of malicious jamming or spoofing.

This. They could easily have just masked out some different jumpers with zero-ohm resistors to set the frequency band. In fact, it would have been cheaper to build that way. The only reason to use DIP switches is to let people mess around with the frequency themselves.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#78

Post by midev »

behringer wrote: post #68
midev wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extremely bad to be messing with those frequencies. Potentially catastrophic. If someone with a hobby electronics kit can cause that much damage, the system needs to change. Hobby projects like this can help expose the serious flaws in aircraft control, making us all safer. Security by obscurity is no security at all. Security by hoping people don't do bad things is even worse.

Youre expected not to board a plane with a bomb and youre expected to not operate equipment on wrong frequencies that interfere with others. Just because you can do something does not mean its ok to do.

> Youre expected not to board a plane with a bomb

And we have a lot of controls around this! Congrats! You've discovered airline security!

> expected to not operate equipment on wrong frequencies that interfere with others

If I can build a small electronic device, that goes through no controls, and can cause catastrophic damage, that is a HUGE problem.

> Just because you can do something does not mean its ok to do.

lol, you missed the point. If it's that easy to do something, the system needs to change.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#79

Post by oceanghost »

vel0city wrote: post #59
desine wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, you’re not allowed to “operate” on bands you’re not licensed for, including rx, but enforcement is difficult, of course. Edit: If your device has any transmit ability, it falls under above. If your device ONLY has rx capability, it does not. Many of the USB SDR dongles DO have the capability to tx, albeit at only ~0.5 watts. This is generally not advertised in the device, but their chip does technically…

This is incorrect at least in the US. You are allowed to receive practically everything. There's only really a carve out for analog cellphone frequencies, but that's about it.

You just jogged a weird memory out of my head. In the early days of the internet there were sites that had pirate audio streams from analog cell phones. It was pretty sporadic but a very interesting sort of slice of life thing.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#80

Post by serf »

oceanghost wrote: post #79
vel0city wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect at least in the US. You are allowed to receive practically everything. There's only really a carve out for analog cellphone frequencies, but that's about it.

You just jogged a weird memory out of my head. In the early days of the internet there were sites that had pirate audio streams from analog cell phones. It was pretty sporadic but a very interesting sort of slice of life thing.

I used to watch analog TV streams that were being reroadcast on the ShoutCast network years and years ago.

It's a strange thing to see white-snow-static redigitized and then drop bit-rates.

Post reply on HN