Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Movies

Star Wars Producers Want a 'DroneShield' To Prevent Leaks On Set 138

Posted by timothy from the from-here-they-look-like-ants dept.
Jason Koebler writes Over the last couple of weeks, people have been flying drones over Pinewood Studios, where Star Wars Episode VII is being filmed. That made waves last week, but, perhaps most interestingly, the studio ordered a "DroneShield" back in June anticipating the drone problem. According to the company, a DroneShield can provide email and SMS warnings if it detects a helicopters or drone. In any case, the folks over at DroneShield say that Pinewood Studios never actually got the product: The State Department keeps close tabs on products like these that are shipped overseas, and the company's export application still hasn't gone through.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Wars Producers Want a 'DroneShield' To Prevent Leaks On Set More

Star Wars Producers Want a 'DroneShield' To Prevent Leaks On Set

Comments Filter:
  • "if it detects a helicopters or drone"
  • ...so I'm going to disrupt filming of the new movie! Can you imagine how much it costs to do one take of a scene in this movie? "CUT! Fuck. Reset the $10,000 per shot animatronic thingy. There's a drone in the shot."

  • The Drone Wars (Score:5, Funny)

    by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on Saturday September 20, 2014 @11:43AM (#47954247)
    Begun they have.

    • Plot twist: This is all a big double bluff, and they deliberately set up both the familiar-looking ships and "unexpected" delay in the "shield" that would prevent the leaks. Meanwhile, the real models are being filmed on interior sets no-one knows about at a studio far, far away...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Big business hates drones. Individuals love them.

      For decades, the government has been telling us "if you have nothing to hide, you should not mind the surveillance." Then suddenly they start saying "we have some serious privacy concerns here! Any stranger can take photographs of your back yard! Don't you hate that???" Well, no, since I have nothing to hide (and sure as hell wouldn't hide anything right out in the open in my back yard.

      But you have something to hide, you big government that is full of pe

      • Its not the "individuals" that will be flying these - it'll be scumbags who want to tell you all the plot and characters and spoilers so by the time the movie comes out, you'll have seen it on various entertainment news websites.

        So its not that its less valuable for the producers, but for the public who want to see this stuff as its intended.

        I'm all for big business being brought down to size, but this is not the way to do it.

  • "Send in the drones!" Why not fight drones with drones? Cheaper than a stupid "drone shield" that sends you a text, probably without enough time to do anything.

    Throw in a few old-tech barrage balloons (even weather balloons will do) trailing netting (even helicopters will avoid that), some really high-powered water and potato cannons, and the odd trebuchet filled with flaming dung or politicians (same diff), and "The Making of Star Wars Episode VII" becomes more than just filler.

    • I think the primary difficulty is detecting the drones. It's a little drone in a large sky, easy to hide.

      This is exactly the problem 'drone shield' claims to solve.

      • You can detect the drones by monitoring commonly used radio frequencies, like 433MHz, 900MHz, 1.3GHz, 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz. It's not hard to flood those frequencies with plenty of noise to disrupt control as well as video stream. I would guess these drones are not flying LOS, therefore disrupting video and telemetry would make it very difficult for a drone operator to effectively maneuver, make any interesting video, and even return the drone back to safety.

        They probably don't want drones simply because people

        • Time to get some trained falcons (or other predators) on the job. Kind of like the search-and-rescue pigeons (I think it was pigeons) being able to sight a human bobbing in the water a lot better than a human with binoculars can.

        • There's no reason the drone needs to transmit anything while it's tasked. Programmed waypoints and actions, and it uses GPS to navigate. Switch on control comms for takeoff/landing.

          • Commonly used GPS units on drones rely on GPS lock to function. These are also radio frequencies which can be overwhelmed in small areas. I know this because using an overpowered 1.2GHz transmitter on the drone will negatively effect GPS satellite lock. Knock the sat lock down to below 6 and you got yourself a lost drone.

            • from personal experience i can tell you that anything nearby operating around 1500 MHz (even a simple clock line or other unshielded electronics) will simply kill GPS reception completely.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Rich0 ( 548339 )

              That, and no lunch for your crew when the caterer's can't navigate to your site. :)

              Inverse square is also a problem - those drones can be rather high so unless you know where it is and can use a directional antenna, you have to broadcast a very strong omnidirectional GPS jammer. The drone can also use a directional antenna that rejects signals from below, which means that you need to use even more power. When nearby aircraft start having navigation issues, you might start getting complaints about that.

              The

              • Typical drone ground stations w will use circular polarized, directional antennas for live video signal, however you won't have a CP directional on the drone (for obvious reasons) and will use omni directional instead (not very directional). This means that it's pretty easy to disrupt a 1.3, 2.4 and 5.8GHz signal (or even 900MHz) with simple, cheap hobby gear when you're closer to the drone than the operator.

                For control (usually 433MHz or 2.4GHz), you won't be using directional antennas on either end-point

        • I would guess these drones are not flying LOS, therefore disrupting video and telemetry would make it very difficult for a drone operator to effectively maneuver, make any interesting video, and even return the drone back to safety.

          This is in the UK, where there are clear legal requirements [droneflight.co.uk] if you want to operate a drone. People can be and have been [theguardian.com] prosecuted for violating them.

          So it is highly unlikely that any such drones were flying without LOS at close range or that they would be used by any reputable commercial surveillance firm without permission. As the cases mentioned above demonstrate, someone who violates the rules may well wind up in court with a hefty fine, and the authorities aren't going to look sympathetically on any ex

          • I highly doubt that the drones spying in on the Star Wars set are being operated by a reputable commercial surveillance firm. In fact, I doubt they're being operated by someone who cares about the drone operation legal regulations either.

            • I agree. It's probably just kids with Phantoms doing crap they shouldn't be doing in the first place - not serious hobbyists.

            • It's no secret who filmed the footage or what they were doing at the time: they spotted the studio by accident while doing publicity shots for a local flight school. It seems a safe bet that the drone flight in question would be compliant with the CAA rules.

        • You can detect the drones by monitoring commonly used radio frequencies, like 433MHz, 900MHz, 1.3GHz, 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz. It's not hard to flood those frequencies with plenty of noise to disrupt control as well as video stream.

          It is very hard to do what you propose legally.

        • It's not hard to flood those frequencies with plenty of noise

          It may not be hard, but it is illegal.

    • "Send in the drones!" Why not fight drones with drones?

      I feel like a way better attack vector would be a computer controlled kite. Between a string reaching all the way to the ground almost invisible to see, and a bunch of long streaming tails from the kite to foul rotors - you could do pretty well, if you can find the drone.

      I would think though it would be more effective to hire goons to hang around anywhere open and with a line of sight to the area over the filming. Kind of a different take on the XKCD

    • I'd think a modified shotgun shell (or a compressed air version for the UK) stuffed with fine netting with a few weights attached would easily be able to take down any drones flying at less than 30 meters or so. Japan developed such a "spiderman-gun" for holligans in the Nagano Olympics years ago. For higher-flying drones, an anti-drone drone that could drop a net from above would also work. In either case, though, you'd have drones falling from the sky.

  • Low-tech solution (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Hire a couple of rednecks with shotguns to stand guard. Payment in beer and high cholesterol food.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megane ( 129182 )
      Even better low-tech solution: camoflauge cover. I saw that pic of the half-built Millennium Falcon the other day. Completely open to the sky.

  • They're overthinking the problem. It's in Georgia. All's ya need to do is give BillyBob's thousand-year-old grampy a decent slingshot and a bucket of marbles, and tell him you'll pay him $250 every time he can hit one of those tiny little gummint spy planes.

    Better yet, get him to tell his fishing buddies about the prize, and his buddies, etc... until you have a low level permeation thru the community. Just remember to pay 'em (and pay out of the set's lunch fund on an obfuscated line item that says someth

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dahan ( 130247 )

      They're overthinking the problem. It's in Georgia.

      TFS talks about not being able to get an export license, so we know it's not in Georgia (unless you mean the country). And TFA says it's in the UK (which is where Pinewood's main studio is... they did recently open a location near Atlanta, Georgia though).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by xeno ( 2667 )

        Ah, dammit. My bad.
        I did a bunch of work in Atlanta, and Pinewood Atlanta Studios (a good sized film/sound stage facility over 1/2 square mile in Fayetteville, Georgia) is just "Pinewood Studios" over there...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

      uh... Pinewood's in Buckinghamshire.

    • As usual with BillyBob and his "coussins", the other extreme is *under-thinking* the problem.

      The problem is to find those drones in the first place, especially if they're coming in low and slow, or high enough to be out of slingshot range.

      The "droneshield" thingy seems to tackle the problem by analysing ambient sounds. From the webpage the article refers to:

      Drones present many threats to military and homeland security forces and facilities. "Low, Slow, and Small" UAS are a growing threat that legacy CUA

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Georgia? The locals will do it for free if you spread the rumor that "Obama's commie drones are coming to take your guns away and spray you with 'gay gas'."

  • White House (Score:3)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Saturday September 20, 2014 @11:56AM (#47954323)
    This makes me wonder how the White House and other high-profile government locations' security staffs deal with this issue. It's got to be a problem there as well, probably moreso as a drone could be armed, not just doing movie set recon. I have to think that there must have been recent incidents, but I've not seen any news accounts.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

      the US Government use UCAVs to keep the airspace around DC clear. These are generally armed with air to air missiles for larger targets such as helicopters and scattershots for smaller aircraft such as drones. The safety is in the operator flying from a desk, other than that it's a crapshoot as to when (not if) one of these things'll drop its payload onto a busload of schoolchildren.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Animats ( 122034 )

        the US Government use UCAVs to keep the airspace around DC clear.

        Actually, the current response to airspace incursions in the DC area is an F-16 and a Coast Guard helicopter. The F-16 is in case it turns out to be hostile, and the Coast Guard helicopter is for the usual case, which is a clueless VFR pilot who needs directions. This happens several times a week. The FAA now insists that all pilots operating within 60 miles of DC (actually 60NM of the DCA VOR) take this online course. [faasafety.gov] Amazingly, there are still clueless pilots wandering into this airspace, although fewer

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 )

      It's pretty hard to legally buy a gun in the UK. You need a license, and they aren't available to just anyone who asks like in the US. You need to demonstrate a legitimate reason to own a gun (Self-defense doesn't count - pest control or organised sports shooting will do), and then there are some background checks to go through. There's even a requirement for a doctor's certificate of competence (ie, no mental illness) and a police inspection of the intended firearms storage area to ensure it is secure.

      It's

    • I'd prefer people - trained or not - refrain from firing high-power rifles at airborne targets.

    • Take a look at the video. The drone is at least 1000 feet up. If it's painted dull colors, you probably can't even see it from the ground.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rich0 ( 548339 )

        Yup. This would be like the Taliban telling their field commanders to just station soldiers with sniper rifles to shoot down F-15s. If you want to shoot down a drone which is taking steps to be hard to shoot down, you'll need a radar-controlled anti-aircraft battery or missile system. I hear they're selling them at the grocery stores in Eastern Ukraine.

        • I thought the apocryphal story of Taliban marksmanship was the discovery of a weakness in Mi-24 "Hind" helicopter tails or tail rotors. The Taliban would then mass fire from their Lee-Enfields on this spot, bringing down the Hinds.

  • *waves hand* (Score:4, Funny)

    by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Saturday September 20, 2014 @12:16PM (#47954409) Homepage Journal
    These aren't the drones you're looking for.

  • Begun The Drone War Has

  • British problem. British solution. (Score:3)

    by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Saturday September 20, 2014 @12:27PM (#47954461)

    Barrage balloons. String some blimps up on cables around the property, hang nets from the cables. It's legal, passive, safe - and only the most skilled of drone pilots could reliably navigate the maze without getting their rotors tangled. Plus the studio gets some free drones - somehow I don't imagine many of the pilots will be asking for their return.

  • Easy DroneShield countermeasure (Score:5, Funny)

    by Molt ( 116343 ) on Saturday September 20, 2014 @12:59PM (#47954659)
    "These are not the drones you are looking for.."
  • The drones are so small they're avoiding the turbo lasers.

    They'll have to destroy them ship to ship.
  • in the words of William Shatner, "Get a life".

  • Couldn't they just (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Send up a few x-wings after them?

  • I sense a business opportunity here: killer drones!

    These would be designed to go after and knock down the hovering picture-snapping kind, which would be easy pickings. The killer drones don't need to hover - they fly faster than the hovering kind and just go straight at 'em. Some kind of netting or framework to snag and entangle the drone rotors perhaps. Option of either hauling it back as evidence, or in true bird of prey fashion just applying a "killing blow" and letting it fall to the ground. Developing

  • Why could someone theoretically not just launch a balloon outside the shield perimeter with a zoom lens capable of looking in on this?

    Also, why are people going to such lengths for spoilers? To me, a true fan is someone who is willing to wait for the full experience with the wonder of not knowing ahead of time how things are going to pan out.

  • Sorry Disney, you don't own the airspace. If you want to be outdoors in private, you build a fence. If there's a building or hill with a view of your property, oh well. Someone wants to fly over the property? Oh well. If you want privacy of that nature, film indoors or use a tarp of some kind. You have no right to stop people from exercising their rights, and you have no right to privacy if you can be seen from a public location.

    This is one of the main reasons for the push to limit drone operation in

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      It has nothing to do with public safety, it has everything to do with corporate secrecy.

      Yeah, but you aren't going to get that much sympathy for defending your right to spy on studio lots. Corporate secrecy is a bad thing when it conceals illegal waste dumping, logging, environmental hazards, etc. But if you get all butthurt over not getting snaps of your favorite plywood spacheship, people will fail to give a shit in pretty short order.

      Its a valuable right. Don't go fucking it up for everyone.

  • Who cares.... seriously. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by seanvaandering ( 604658 ) <sean...vaandering@@@gmail...com> on Saturday September 20, 2014 @11:45PM (#47957191)
    I'm somewhat a Star Wars fan... and I'm like most people - I may have a passing curiosity on the developments in the movie, and might click a link here and there, but for the most part, I don't really care about every little inner workings of the movie, which is still very much in development. Even if I saw a X-Wing fighter.. and gasped that there will be X-Wing fighters in the movie... it doesn't really mean anything at this point because no one really knows the whole storyboard and plot of the movie. If anything these drones are giving the movie additional free advertising that can't be bought, but if you think this in any way will spoil the movie when it's released is ludicrous at best.

  • Erect a giant Jar Jar, then the fanboys will be all pissed and lose interest in snooping. Solved!

  • Bob`s a neighbour with a semi-automatic, double-barrel, under-over, 12 gauge shotgun.

    Bob likes to shoot quail, duck, skeet, highway signs, and drones.

    I asked Bob, ``How can you shoot someone`s expensive drone?"
    He replied, " Easy. You just have to lead 'em a little more."

  • I would hope that they need import permits for anything beyond a passive monitor.

    As for all the idiots suggesting signal jammers and even GPS blockers, no chance. It's doubtful that you would get away with using them in most of your own country although big money is more effective there. In this country, even big money finds it harder. You would need some help from the police at least but would be a little more likely to succeed if you had military or spook help.

  • This is a good example why drones should be banned.. Now it's trying to get some eyes on filming of a big budget movie, but drones can (and are) also be used to peeping tom..
    Whenever I see a drone over my property, it'll receive a nice buckshot.. Oh sorry I've mistaken it for my claypigeon..
    Drones are nothing more than an RC airplane, and where I live you cannot fly those over populated area's, only on special assigned area's (mostly farmland)..
    Because people can fly a simple drone with a camera now, doesn'

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close