UK police forces want to use drones to search for missing people

Police forces in Devon, Cornwall and Dorset are testing the use of drones for searching for missing people and exploring crime scenes

Police forces in Devon, Cornwall and Dorset have revealed they are testing the use of drones for use in a number of policing matters, including missing people searches and photography of crime scenes.

From today, police in Devon and Cornwall will be able to call upon the services of two DJI Inspire 1 drones, which are equipped with high definition cameras that can capture both video and still images. One is based in Exeter and the other in Plymouth.

Both drones have an HD downlink which means officers on the ground can see live footage captured by the drone in the air. Each drone can fly for up to 18 minutes at a time before returning to the operator to change batteries – although each drone has several batteries, so can be kept operational for a prolonged period of time if required.

Police in Dorset are also undertaking final preparations for drone use, and will be trialling in their area from 26th November. Further details will be announced later in the month.

“Drones offer many benefits that complement the National Police Air Service (NPAS) Helicopter. This technology offers a highly cost effective approach to missing person searches, crime scene photography, and responding to major road traffic collisions,” said Inspector Andy Hamilton, who is heading up the trial.

“Using a drone to capture footage on difficult terrain and hard to reach areas such as cliffs, woodland or the moors to find a missing person, combat wildlife crime or even a firearm incident, will allow officers to gain vital information, quickly, safely, and allow us to respond effectively at the scene.”

Civil Aviation (CAA) regulations state that drone operators must pass a national CAA accredited qualification. The Devon and Cornwall force currently has three trained operators in place for the trial, including Inspector Hamilton, and there are plans to train further officers should the trial prove to be a success.

A new Twitter account has been created @DC_PoliceDrones which will keep the public informed about where and when the drones are in operational use within Devon and Cornwall, as well as sharing operational footage and images of the drones in action.

“This technology still has its limitations; the models we are trialling are currently unable to fly at night or in adverse weather, but having the option to put a drone in the air in a few minutes’ notice could help save lives,” said Inspector Hamilton.

Earlier this year, it emerged that police in the north Indian city of Lucknow were testing the use of pepper-spraying drones for controlling unruly protesters. Police chief Yashasvi Yadav, said that the results were “brilliant”, and that they had worked out how to target “the mob” in winds and congested areas.

Meanwhile, the Australian postal service announced today that it would be using drones to deliver parcels to rural communities – rather like the drone delivery service proposed by Amazon.

UK firms develop drone-freezing ray

Three British companies have created a device to deter drones from entering sensitive areas by freezing them in mid-flight.

The Anti-UAV Defense System (Auds) works by covertly jamming a drone’s signal, making it unresponsive.

After this disruption, the operator is likely to retrieve the drone believing that it has malfunctioned.

The system joins a host of recently announced technologies which can blast larger drones out of the sky.

A drone flying in sensitive airspace can be detected by the Auds radar and then sighted via a camera equipped with thermal imaging capabilities so that it can be targeted visually.

Then, a high-powered radio signal can be focused on the drone – essentially overriding the connection to whoever is operating it.

The whole process takes as little as 25 seconds, according to the manufacturers.

Radio jam

“It’s a radio signal. There are a number of frequency bands that are used by all of the manufacturers,” explained Paul Taylor of Enterprise Control Systems, which developed the product along with Blighter Surveillance Systems and Chess Dynamics.

“We transmit into those frequencies in the direction of the UAV using a directional antenna,” he told the BBC.

“There’s quite a lot of radio power on to the UAV – so much so that it can only hear our Auds signal.”

The Auds operator can then choose to freeze the drone just for a short time – to convince its owner that there’s something wrong with it – or for a longer period, until its battery dies and it crashes.

Auds has been tested in the UK, the USA and France, said Mr Taylor, and government organisations in all three countries had been involved in those tests.

Aviation authorities are increasingly concerned about nuisance hobbyists flying drones close to large aircraft at airports.

The US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) is now receiving around 100 reports per month from pilots who have sighted drones within a five-mile radius of their aircraft.

Last year the sightings numbered only a few per month.

In response, the FAA recently signed an agreement to test new technology which detects drones and identifies the location of their operator.

A spokesman for UK’s Civil Aviation Authority, however, told the BBC that the organisation was not likely to consider investigating similar technologies any time soon.

“It’s not something that we really feel the need to be doing,” he said. “Our focus is on educating consumers.

“We’ve had our rules in place for over six years now.

“The FAA are a little late to the party in many ways – they developed their regulations only recently.”

Drone killers

Beyond simply halting a small quadcopter drone while in flight, there are also military grade weapons now available to blast larger UAVs out of the sky.

The US Army recently demonstrated a prototype weapon which fires special projectiles at UAVs to damage them.

These projectiles can be steered on approach to the drone, which is tracked on the ground with radar.

Once close enough, warheads on the projectiles can be detonated, theoretically destroying the target vehicle.

Alternatively, militaries around the world could also soon be swatting UAVs out of the air with lasers thanks to Boeing’s Compact Laser Weapons System.

A recent video published on the company’s YouTube profile shows the weapon in action as it burns through the tail of an airborne drone.

Although the technology might sound futuristic, earlier prototypes of so-called “beam weapons” were being tested as long ago as 1974.

It’s taken decades of development for them to be considered viable weapon systems for the military today.

FAA proposes $1.9 million fine for company flying drones in New York and Chicago

The Federal Aviation Administration finally laid down the legal groundwork for the operation of small drones in February, but as the governmental body showed this week, those laws don’t mean you can just fly unpiloted craft wherever you like. The FAA has proposed its biggest fine ever — $1.9 million — to be levied against aerial photography company SkyPan International for illegal drone flights in the busy airspace above New York and Chicago.

The FAA says that SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized drone flights over urban areas between March 21st, 2012 and December 15th, 2014. The drones involved allegedly lacked a two-way radio, transponder, altitude-reporting equipment, airworthiness certificates and effective registration, while SkyPan itself failed to get a valid Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for the flights. The FAA says that of the 65 flights, 43 of those flights reportedly took place in New York’s tightly restricted Class B airspace, and took off without receiving air traffic control clearance to do so.

The FAA criticized irresponsible drone use in August, noting that pilots had already reported more than 650 close calls with small uncrewed craft in the first eight months of 2015 alone — more than double the 238 reports it filed in 2014. But SkyPan has defended its record, telling the National Journal that it has been conducting aer­i­al pho­to­graphy in urb­an areas for 27 years “in full compliance with published FAA regulations,” and that it was “fully in­sured and proud of its impeccable record of protecting the pub­lic’s safety, security and privacy.” The company now has 30 days to respond to the FAA.

In a statement released on its website, FAA administrator Michael Huerta said that “flying unmanned aircraft in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations is illegal and can be dangerous.” Huerta noted that the US has “the safest airspace in the world,” but said that “everyone who uses it must understand and observe our comprehensive set of rules and regulations.”

But SkyPan could argue those rules are far from comprehensive. Congress set a date of September 30th for the FAA to pull together blanket rules that would legalize the use of small drones, but after putting out proposed regulations in February, the aviation administration missed the deadline. It said that it may need until 2017 — or even later — to reach a consensus of opinion. Until then, the FAA has approved more than a thousand individual flights, but the US is still without federal regulations, frustrating both hobbyist drone operators and companies such as Amazon who plan to use drones to deliver items to customers.

California may ban drones from trespassing over private property

The California State Assembly yesterday passed legislation that would make drone operators guilty of trespassing if they fly their UAVs over private property.

The bill (SB-142) still faces a vote in the senate, but if signed, will make flying a drone below 350 feet over private property without the consent of the property owner illegal. Currently the FAA allows small aircraft to be flown for recreational purposes without a permit, below 400 feet and at least five miles from an airport. This means that, if this bill is signed, drone hobbyists in California will only be able to fly their drones within a small band of airspace — between 350 feet and 400 feet.

DRONE HOBBYISTS IN CALIFORNIA WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO FLY WITHIN A SMALL BAND OF AIRSPACE

According to the Los Angeles Times, some lawmakers expressed concern that the new bill would stifle growth and innovation in the burgeoning drone industry. But Mike Gatto, one of the bill’s supporters, argues that businesses won’t be harmed because trespassing penalties would only be applied to drone operators, not manufacturers.

States and agencies across the country have been struggling to figure out how to regulate drones, but it’s unclear how successfully this bill will be able to protect privacy. It’s not clear how a 350 feet rule would eliminate spying completely, but it will prevent operators from being able to fly their drones directly outside people’s homes.

Bill SB–142 passed the Assembly on a 43–11 vote, and will go to the Senate for final approval. Bill AB–856, which makes it a crime for paparazzi to use drones to take pictures or video over private property, was also passed, by a vote of 40–0.

What happens when you cross a camera drone with a kite?

The Fotokite Phi tethered drone is a budget-level flying quadcopter that’s as simple as taking a dog for a walk

Drones. They’re the most hyped gadgets in the world.

Do you really want to fork out several hundred pounds for a glorified model aeroplane that’s as easy to manoevre as a unicycle on a flight of stairs? Yes, you can understand the appeal of military drones and, at a push,Amazon delivery drones, but do you really need one in your life, taking photos of your garden from 100 feet up? Chances are you’d only lose it within minutes or crash it into a neighbourhood tree.

The Consumer Electronics Association estimates that the domestic drone market should be worth around £86m this year – up 50 per cent on 2014 – but you’re not convinced.

Well, prepare to put your cynicism to one side. Fotokite Phi is a new breed of domestic camera drone which manages to be affordable, extremely portable and almost impossible to lose.

The gadget, launched on crowdfunding site Indiegogo this week, is the brainchild of robotics researcher Sergei Lupashin, who has described it, self-deprecatingly perhaps, as a “flying selfie-stick“. It’s USP is its smart 8m tether which is used to guide the drone into a desired position with a flick of the wrist while holding down a button at the end of the leash. Sensors measure the angle of the leash relative to the user, so that when you move, the drone moves too.

According to BBC technology writer Andy Armstrong, “Anyone who’s walked a dog without losing it can operate a Fotokite“. At 300g (GoPro camera not included) it’s one of the lighter drones on the market, and even folds up into a small carry tube.

• Drones freak out animals, say scientists

Aimed at “the hobby photographer, the action sports enthusiast, the guerrilla journalist and the gadget aficionado”, the Fotokite, “a cross between an airborne pet and a steadicam in the sky”, has attracted a third of its $300,000 funding target in under 24 hours.

Priced at £160, the first Fotokites will be shipped next March.

Bears get ‘stressed’ by drones

Bears show signs of stress when drones are flown near them, according to a new study.

Researchers at the University of Minnesota put health tracking collars on six bears, and measured data during 17 drone flights.

The heart rate of all the bears increased when the drones were flown within 20 metres of their location.

The study concluded more research was needed to see whether bears would get accustomed to drone flights over time.

Figure C: A startled bear

Despite the rise in heart rate, the bears did not usually display a behavioural response to the drone.

“Bears in this population live in a highly human-altered landscape”, the researchers wrote, “And therefore may exhibit lower stress responses.”

The bear did not show a big increase in activity during the drone flight…

…but the same bear showed a heart rate spike during the drone flight.

Unmanned aerial vehicles are useful tools for wildlife researchers because they can easily visit remote locations and observe animals from a distance.

In the case of a goose-bothering drone built in Canada, they have also been used to deliberately scare off unwanted animals.

Steve Wambolt built the GooseBuster, a drone with a loudspeaker playing recordings of predatory birds.

The noise scares away geese which can be a nuisance.

Mr Wambolt told Modern Farmer tests had worked “remarkably well”.

However the team behind the study on bears suggested drone-induced stress could make animals “more vulnerable to sources of mortality”, such as fleeing into another animal’s territory, or running into traffic.

It advised wildlife researchers to take caution when using drones “especially with regard to endangered species”.

The study was published in scientific journal Current Biology.

Musk, Hawking, Wozniak: Ban AI warfare, autonomous weapons

More than a thousand researchers, AI experts, and high-profile business leaders say war is getting out of hand and we should ban “offensive autonomous weapons,” lest the world powers wind up in a “military artificial intelligence arms race.”  They would ban AI development for warfare and autonomous weapons that decide who, what, where, and when to fire. They’d draw the line so as to allow remotely operated devices under human control, however, such as drones are now.

The signatories include Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, professor Stephen Hawking, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, and about 1,000 others. The letter will be presented at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Wednesday in Buenos Aires, according to the Guardian, which first reported the story.

AI as the third deadly revolution in warfare

According to the letter, “AI technology has reached a point where the deployment of [autonomous weapons] is – practically if not legally – feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.”

On the one hand, they say, artificial intelligence makes the battlefield safer. On the other, it lowers the risk of going to war, especially for the side that strikes first or has more and better AI weaponry.

Beyond gunpowder and nukes, there have been other big leaps in technology that gave one side an advantage: the machine gun (Gatling Gun) of 1862, poison gas and tanks in World War I, massive aerial bombardment of cities in the 1930s (taking war beyond the front line and to the civilian population), and potentially biological agents. Ironically, Richard Gatling, inventor of the eponymous weapon, was quoted as believing its efficiency would reduce the size of armies and thus the total amount of deaths and suffering. The only way it reduced the size of armies was after a battalion charged the guns.

Some new weapons have been banned or sidelined. Since 1995, blinding lasers have been outlawed.

Differences among the signers

There is general agreement that an AI/robotic arms race is bad, especially since they make their own decisions, which could lead to the escalation of fighting since both sides can toss more materiel at each other. There are also differences: Hawking and Musk have said, “[AI] biggest existential threat …. [full AI might] spell the end of the human race.” Wozniak on the other hand makes an orthogonal point: Robots can be good for people. They might become akin to the “family pet … taken care of all the time.” If so, Sony needs to bring back Aibo quick.

Generally, the 1,000-plus signatories appear to see a difference between hands-off autonomous weaponry using AI decision-making, and devices such as drones that operate without humans aboard, but controlled from afar (sometimes back in heartland America) by human operators who decide when to push the button.

Already considered by the UN

In April, a United Nations conference meeting in Geneva discussed futuristic weapons, including killer robots. Some world powerhouses were opposed to limits or bans. The UK, for instance, was in opposition because it wasn’t necessary. According to The Guardian, the UK Foreign Office said, “[We] we do not see the need for a prohibition on the use of laws, as international humanitarian law already provides sufficient regulation for this area.”

Right now, advantage accrues to the major powers with big budgets. Over time, smaller countries or rogues-without-states could buy or adapt robots and AI to their own purposes. Unlike work on nukes or chemical weapons, it might be easier to mask their work into AI warfare.