Texas College Hacks Government Drone

Hi guys- This is my first thread so go easy on me. I found this article to be alittle disturbing about the drone being hacked into. Apparently, the US homeland security challenged researchers at the University of Texas in Austin to 'take control' of one of their drones--and they did just that!

now.msn.com...


They were able to trick the drone's GPS system into following a new set of commands!

I find this very disturbing for our future. I mean, what if someone hacked into a drone and used it as a weapon against us?!

Originally posted by texasgirl


I find this very disturbing for our future. I mean, what if someone hacked into a drone and used it as a weapon against us?!

while it may seem disturbing, i would imagine this is exactly why the gov't asked an outside group to try. trial and error. before they fill our skies with them, they want to make sure they iron out all the wrinkles...make sure that once they set that drone on "kill mode", no one will be able to intercept.

practice BEFORE you need accuracy and reliability...

that college would've done US citizens a lot of good if they would've hacked it but not told the gov't they were able to...kinda keep that trick up their sleeve so that once the assassination czar starts swinging the ax, some folks would already have backdoors into the software to stop the attacks.

Most of the "30,000 UAVs" that will fill the skies will be smaller hand and catapult launched UAVs, not the Predators, Reapers, or Global Hawks most people are used to hearing about on the news all the time. These will be in the 6-20 pound range. Even if they were spoofed and "used as a missile against us" the amount of damage they could actually do is fairly minimal.

While this could be bad it could also be a good thing. If the government starts using these drones against the Citizens, I would hope that there would be someone out there that could hack into them and stop them.

Yes, these are all good comments. I never thought of it this way. I only hope the government works to correct this problem and that professional hackers (like the ones who are causing lots of problems with the banks right now!) aren't able to do this later down the road!

reply to post by texasgirl


I would not have any interest in hacking a drone and activating a "kill mode".

I think it would be much more fun to hack into them all, have the return to their launch points and land.

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by texasgirl

 

I would not have any interest in hacking a drone and activating a "kill mode".

I think it would be much more fun to hack into them all, have the return to their launch points and land.

Yes, that would definitely be 'sticking it' to them!

Well.. if anyone every hacked into a drone they could use as a weapon against us it would be the governments fault for flying a weaponized drone in our own airspace. I personally am against the federal government flying drones, but that's me. We have turned our country into a legit police state and pretty much sucked the life out of the "American Dream." And to think Hunter Thompson thought the American dream was dead in the 60's,, he had no idea (well maybe he figured it out in the early 2000's).

Honestly I am glad to see that they can do this. If the government ever starts using them against us at least we know our scholars are capable.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


They aren't going to be flying weaponized UAVs. They're talking about taking control of one and crashing it into something. That's what they did in this test, except they had a person take it back over at the last minute.

I'm all for safety. Keep the streets crime free? Sure why not. With a watchful eye out there maybe people would think twice before committing crimes.

However i do not think Government should be the sole operators of these drones and all information gained from their use.

Why not let local law enforcement take the reigns on this one and keep big brother out of it?

With great power comes great responsibility.

The US can't balance a checkbook. What makes you think they are responsible enough to use these things?

reply to post by cconn487


Most of these will be operated by local law enforcement. A number of local law enforcement agencies already have UAVs under their control, and more are buying them.

Law enforcement in the United States has been quietly using aerial drones in a domestic capacity. The Texas Department of Public Safety has deployed them more than any other local or state agency.

The Washington Post had a detailed story on Sunday that described a high-risk operation in Austin, Texas in 2009 where a drone was used. Officials involved in that event talked about it for the first time publicly in The Post’s article. They approved of the fact that it allows them to observe things with a whole new level of secrecy.

"The nice thing is it's covert," said Bill C. Nabors Jr., chief pilot with the Texas DPS. "You don't hear it, and unless you know what you're looking for, you can't see it."

www.tgdaily.com...

Are the police using unmanned drones, like those used against terrorists in places like Pakistan and Yemen, to conduct surveillance of your community from the sky? Since 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued about 700 to 750 “Certificates of Authorization” (COAs) to 56 domestic government agencies and other entities that want to operate drones in the U.S. Some of the agencies have more than one COA, like the University of Colorado, which may have had as many as 100 different COAs over the last six years. But the FAA released the list of the 56 agencies only after the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and lawsuit against the FAA.

As AllGov reported last year, law enforcement leads the way on interest in drones. Of the 56 domestic agencies, 22 are primarily law enforcement agencies, like the Houston Police Department and the Department of Homeland Security, and 23 are agencies that have law enforcement functions under them, like the 24 universities on the list, all of which have police departments (in one case, a college is listed twice, once for its police department and once for a Research Institute).

Among the law enforcement agencies on the list are the Arlington Police Department in Texas; North Little Rock, Arkansas, PD; Queen Anne’s County Sheriff in Maryland; the FBI; Gadsden PD; Georgia Tech PD; Mesa County Sheriff in Colorado; Miami-Dade PD in Florida; Montgomery County Sheriff in Texas; Ogden, Utah, PD; Polk County Sheriff in Florida; and the Seattle, Washington, Police Department, not to mention Otter Tail County, Minnesota (population 57,303) and the city of Herington, Kansas (population 2,526).

www.allgov.com...

reply to post by Zaphod58


You act like this is a good thing. It's the equivalent to a police helicopter flying over your neighborhood just for surveillance when ever they feel like it.

This technology could allow police departments to film the actions of the public below with high definition, infrared and thermal cameras.

But don’t feel relief yet because by 2013 the FAA expects to have made new laws that would allow cops across the nation to regularly use lightweight, unarmed drones up to 400 feet above the ground, high up enough for them to be unseen, ever watching eyes in the sky.

One maker is already advertising one of its small units as an ideal tool for “urban monitoring.” The military, who is often a first user of technologies that enter the civilian realm, is ready to deploy a system in Afghanistan that will be capable of scanning an area the size of a small city.

It’s not if these drones will be abused by law enforcement, it’s when. Law enforcement has a history of using FLIR cameras to spy on "suspected" criminals illegally, without a warrant. It’s naïve to think that these drones won’t be routinely used to illegally spy on civilians. Once the FAA gets that law passed around 2013, it will be open season to use drones to keep the masses in control.

www.tgdaily.com...

reply to post by RealSpoke


Where did I say it's a good thing? I said it's not like it's being made out to be, where anyone can hack a giant UAV, like a Global Hawk, and crash it into a building or use the UAVs as weapons. Since when is knowing more of the truth a bad thing? What, should I ignore the truth and just run around screaming "oh my god!" like so many others do?

reply to post by Zaphod58


I agree. I would rather know the truth about what's going on. So many of my friends have no idea what is happening in the skies or with our government slowly taking away our rights.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

They aren't going to be flying weaponized UAVs. They're talking about taking control of one and crashing it into something. That's what they did in this test, except they had a person take it back over at the last minute.

Zaph, do you really think the government will not weaponize drones with small arms? I know they will because it is easier to send in a drone that a real person.....

I remember when the Iraqi fighters were hacking in and watch the video feed. I see In 10 years drones will be the way police do business. They will communicate with you through drones and watch our every movement.

30,000 drones? Does anyone know if the government informs airports when these things are in the air? Would this increase the likelihood of an air disaster? I'd hate to have one come down in my neighborhood!

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


The drones in question aren't big enough to carry much. Some of them have had to have special munitions developed for them, and they weigh 25lbs or less. When you're talking small UAVs such as these, they don't have much carrying capacity. Now if the police buy Predators or larger UAVs, then yes, I can see them trying to put weapons on them. Currently the only weapons would have to be bought through the military and are out of the price range of most police forces.

reply to post by texasgirl


Currently there are special rules in place for UAVs to fly through public airspace. The only ones that are really flying around through any kind of national airspace are Global Hawks. Predators are so small that they are hauled anywhere long distance on a C-130, C-5, or C-17. When a Global Hawk does fly, they try to keep from going through congested airspace. When they do have to, they are in contact with ATC, just like any manned aircraft, and follow instructions like just a manned aircraft. The RQ-4 however, flies higher than any commercial or even private aircraft flies, so there is little to no chance of a conflict with another aircraft.

The FAA is in the process of testing two systems with future UAVs. One is the ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast) that is also used on current commercial aircraft. It broadcasts a signal showing where the aircraft is, so any aircraft that has a receiver will know there is another aircraft in the area.

Far different from radar, which works by bouncing radio waves from fixed terrestrial antennas off of airborne targets and then interpreting the reflected signals, ADS-B uses conventional Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) technology and a relatively simple broadcast communications link as its fundamental components. Also, unlike radar, ADS-B accuracy does not seriously degrade with range, atmospheric conditions, or target altitude and update intervals do not depend on the rotational speed or reliability of mechanical antennas.

In a typical applications, the ADS-B capable aircraft uses an ordinary GNSS (GPS, Galileo, etc) receiver to derive its precise position from the GNSS constellation, then combines that position with any number of aircraft discretes, such as speed, heading, altitude and flight number. This information is then simultaneously broadcast to other ADS-B capable aircraft and to ADS-B ground, or satellite communications transceivers which then relay the aircraft's position and additional information to Air Traffic Control centers in real time.

The 978 MHz Universal Access Transceiver ("UAT") variant is also bi-directional and capable of sending real-time Flight Information Services ("FIS-B"), such as weather and other data to aircraft. In some areas, conventional non-ADS-B radar traffic information ("TIS-B"), can also be uplinked as well.

www.ads-b.com...

The other is being developed by the military to use on UAVs, that is a "see and avoid" technology. The UAV will have a small radar set installed, and when it sees another aircraft near it, it will take action to avoid any kind of conflict with that aircraft.

The goal for UAV introduction into the US NAS is an equivalent level of safety, including collision avoidance for UAV operation, when compared to piloted aircraft. Flight International quotes the FAA's Nick Sabatini on this issue.


Of the remaining regulatory and technological issues, the goal is the certification of a system of technology, feedback, analysis and control, which reduces the risk of an air to air collision, to the same level of risk currently enjoyed for manned flight, is of paramount interest and importance. The regulations governing DSA are contained within 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules". ASTM has published a standard, F2411-04e for "DSA Collision Avoidance" and is available for purchase from ASTM International. David Grilley of Alion Science has recently published a paper with AUVSI which describes the problem and represents an analytical framework to evaluate systems that qualify as candidates for DSA within a small UA system.


The most common term for this capability is Detect Sense and Avoid (DSA). The military uses deconfliction. Progress has been made in DSA technology development, is continuing, and more advances are inevitable. The question is - What level of efficiency is sufficient to satisfy the "Comparable to Manned Aircraft" level of safety requirement for collision avoidance for UASs?

www.uavm.com...

JEEBUS!
I can see a multi Layered WEB of these things criss crossing the skies......!
The future is a host of prying eyes......which can "SEE" in the dark...into your bedroom, your bathroom, your house...AT WILL....24/7
I can see right now these things being allotted altitude ranges and the separation of different organisations drones fleets.....by size and capabiity.
I KNOW I KNOW>>>>>they wont be thick enough to walk on up there......
But you can damn well bet they will have several models aloft, and SOME of which, will eventually be armed...(probably after a false flag operation...) dont ask me .....
Maybe as much as four layers of surveilance will be up there both intermittently,(like traffic ticket drones. SWAT drones.BP, US Marshaals, Prison facilities,FBI, NSA,DEA,DHS,IRS,LEO locals, and hosts of other orgs, both profit and non profit will be flying these things for al kinds of reasons....
(PLANES DO ONE THING INVARIABLY....SOME CRASH!)

There is a rush to load up on this new technology by the various agencies, and arms of the CIVIL GOVERMENTS.
both fed and local......
I DONT LIKE THE IMPLICATIONS.......
Frankly, it is beginning to scare the pants off of me....If you do not fear their capabilities, you probably dont understand what they ARE capable OF.....
At the very top layer, there will be drones fying so high above us, they will be invisible, to the eys, and silent.
These drones will be capabe of close up vision and even super hearing, as well as seeing through matter to a degree not thought possinble by most....These drones will stay up there for months!
They are currently being tested and flown!
You dont know whats comming if you laud these things......look deeper....They have the capabiity to turn the whole world into one big fish bowl!
OR prison yard if you will...................

Originally posted by texasgirl
Yes, these are all good comments. I never thought of it this way. I only hope the government works to correct this problem and that professional hackers (like the ones who are causing lots of problems with the banks right now!) aren't able to do this later down the road!

That's just the thing. "Professional" hackers will likely ALWAYS be able to find a way it if they want, and if they can do it...

THAT is the problem.

And then we have...the government "hacking" its own, redirecting, and blaming it on (foreign or domestic) terrorist hackers or something. Next war please, and/or even more domestic freedoms down the drain.