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

111–119 of 119 posts

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

#111

Post by R0b0t1 »

fencepost wrote: post #72
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.

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 agr…

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

Do you think the people who operate or use these things are completely helpless and have no contingency plans?

The people in here saying the sky is falling are insane. People who operate disruptive devices are caught, and then educated and/or fined all the time.

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

#112

Post by homero »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #35
homero wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then people would buy phone jammers if they could easily be sold

Kits are already easy to buy. People don't bother buying the kits because if you use the jammer generally you are found. Occasionally pops up in the news.

Easily like preassembled on amazon prime and many more would try it

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

#113

Post by bombcar »

DaveExeter wrote: post #64
bombcar wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my it’s the battery guy! Shipping batteries is why I stopped kitbreaking Milwaukee sets from Home Depot. Too complicated.

You can't just ship them ground?

Even ground includes labeling requirements and such. And it gets complicated knowing what to put. The reality is UPS gives no shots, the USPS is a bit stricter.

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

#114

Post by moftz »

rthomas6 wrote: post #53
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.

GPS signals from the satellites are extremely weak, and actually are below the noise floor. GPS uses processing gain tricks in order to see the signals at all. This means that a terrestrial based transmitter doesn't have to put out a ton of power to break GPS in a large area. Like, many square miles. It makes sense to me to outlaw the sale of RF electronics that are made to transmit on that frequency. Usually I would…

I went to a GnuRadio conference a few years ago where a lot of presentations were on directional tracking of signals. One huge issue is that truckers are using GPS jammers that plug into the cigarette lighter socket to block the truck tracking systems from knowing that they are driving outside of their legal time limits. One trucker has left his jammer plugged in for a day or two. The nearby port was entirely shutdown until authorities found the jammer because the massive ships couldn't navigate the tight quarters of the port without GPS. One project was using cameras along with multiple antennas to attempt to track who was driving past a particular overpass with a jammer turned on. A cigarette lighter socket has the potential to put out tens of watts out RF power which can almost certainly jam anyone that can't use the military anti-jam GPS channels.

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

#115

Post by midev »

rocqua wrote: post #104
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.

This system does not at all rely on security by obscurity. This system relies on safety be reliability / availability. All of the operating parameters are public, to prevent anyone from accidentally interfering with these systems. They are not designed against adversarial attacks, and really with radio systems. It is very hard to defend against jamming attacks. Doing so successfully makes the system a lot more compli…

> They are not designed against adversarial attacks

> Now, this does leave a somewhat fragile system

Thank you for reiterating my point. If such a system is not designed to stop adversarial attacks, and is a fragile system, something needs to change.

I appreciate you trying to explain why it's fragile, but it doesn't negate the risk.

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

#116

Post by midev »

zaarn wrote: post #102
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.

It doesn't. Jamming TCAS or ILS systems doesn't cause crashes. At worst, a go-around and increased workload in the Tower. But since you're disabling safety equipment or their redundancies, in practise it's rightfully treated as harshly as it is. TCAS almost never activates in practise but if your HAM radio jams it and a crash happens... You disabled that redundancy to prevent accidents.

> You disabled that redundancy to prevent accidents

Damn, this sounds like a huge risk. Kinda like the risk I mentioned in my first comment.

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

#117

Post by R0b0t1 »

anilakar wrote: post #81
R0b0t1 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Receiving of certain bands is prohibited, from memory the ones used on cordless phones and something else. All devices sold, say frequency analyzers, have to have a bandgap for them to pass FCC validation. It is common to remove these bandgaps and ignore the law because everyone seems to accept they are really dumb and they wreck the sensitivity of the instrument.

The bandstop filter requirement is mostly a stopgap measure from an analog era when cell phones were basically trunked FM radio systems. That limitation serves no purpose nowadays.

It's not cells or even maily cells, it's a weird cutout for in home wireless phones and some related tech.

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

#118

Post by fencepost »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #111
fencepost wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agr…

> After all, what could possibly go wrong with remote controlled flying transmitters that interfere with GPS AND ATC navigation systems? Do you think the people who operate or use these things are completely helpless and have no contingency plans? The people in here saying the sky is falling are insane. People who operate disruptive devices are caught, and then educated and/or fined all the time.

Absolutely they have contingency plans and it's unlikely something with these would cause a jet crash, but in a scenario with instrument flight due to weather, taking out one of two additional positioning systems adds noticeable risk.

Low visibility. No GPS. Impaired ATC. How many additional separate systems have to be affected to be a real problem?

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

#119

Post by R0b0t1 »

fencepost wrote: post #118
R0b0t1 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After all, what could possibly go wrong with remote controlled flying transmitters that interfere with GPS AND ATC navigation systems? Do you think the people who operate or use these things are completely helpless and have no contingency plans? The people in here saying the sky is falling are insane. People who operate disruptive devices are caught, and then educated and/or fined all the time.

Absolutely they have contingency plans and it's unlikely something with these would cause a jet crash, but in a scenario with instrument flight due to weather, taking out one of two additional positioning systems adds noticeable risk. Low visibility. No GPS. Impaired ATC. How many additional separate systems have to be affected to be a real problem?

Looks like you're moving.
Post reply on HN