Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by icegreentea 4865 days ago
Well, maybe the label of terrorist is a bit extreme. But why the hell should you be able to maliciously broadcast an incorrect GPS signal with the intent of destruction of property (which may btw, put other bystanders in harms way as well) not be viewed as some sort of... at least incorrect act. It is pretty sad that they jump to the label terrorist. But it's not the least reasonable use of the label.

In any case, such an attack is unlikely to work. The crash into the ground is least likely to work since most drones will likely have an independent altitude information. The stall method may work - if the drone has no INS and the operator is asleep.

1 comments

I think you'd be more likely to get in trouble with the FCC for illegal broadcasting.
If they caught you. They'd need to spend a lot of effort to do so, or be very lucky.
How far does FCC jurisdiction extend exactly?
Exactly is a constant legal dispute :) However, the FCC pretty unarguably has authority over use of radio spectra, especially when that use is malicious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC#Regulatory_powers_and_enfo... They get to determine who gets to use what spectrum, where, at what power, and for what purposes.
My point was more that poaching rhinos does not really happen in US territory, and the FCC is an American agency with no international authority that I am aware of.
How far does US jurisdiction extend exactly?
12 nautical miles out from the low-water mark.

US influence extends further.

I of course was being flippant, but if you want to bring reality in to the mix then your answer isn't complete. I believe you are only talking about international waters.

For example, Boumediene v. Bush establishes that the US has "complete jurisdiction and control" over Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, even though Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty. And US jurisdiction in parts of Antarctica is .. complicated. http://219mag.com/2011/03/23/u-s-government-fails-to-protect... .