AirRobots Drone deployed at Demo against the BNP Event in Derbyshire

...the drones will be absent whenever Brazilian plumbers or newspaper vendors get murdered by the cops, or when they are beating the shit out of / tasering protestors and others on the streets / in custody. Three cheers for the police state!

You may be interested to note that an advanced version of the AirRobot - from Microdrones by MW Power - was first introduced by Merseyside Police in May 2007. The MD4-200, used by Staffordshire Police at the V-festival (2007), is set to be supplementted by the new MD4-1000 providing 1kg payload, 1hr flight-time and where legislation allows, a 10km range! www.mwpower.co.uk & www.microdrones.co.uk for more...

,it did seem to get much closer than necessary for just photos.

get to work - radio waves can be messed with, prize to the first one who hacks the pictures, brings one down or captures one.

Is there anyone here who know what the law / legislation is it that governs the use of this kit.

Some will be to do with RIPA [Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000], i guess since its about surveillance. Some about its use in public or private [airspace]. But i think if this was a glider, hang-glider or aircraft in general, then there are many aviation laws. With this one though, i wonder if the civil aviation act applies. Who can operate it? where, with what permissions. I mean you can fly a kite without permission, can't you, so is it just the police and military that can use this kit? Service near airports, military airfields is an obvious prohibition. Personally, I don't know anything about it, Any lawyers can help?

 http://www.bmfa.org/ANO/index.html

I've maybe been watching too many old World War Two documentaries but what the hell...

A video scanner with an aerial would intercept the pictures and could be used identify the control signals. If you can transmit stronger control signals than the base unit then you could land the UAV or at least jam it so it disappeared. A less powerful signal closer to the UAV would be enough. A large transmission aerial could be erected quickly in a temporary site using a tethered helium balloon as a mast (if you bury the earth deep to avoid lightening strikes).

Alternatively, spoof GPS transmissions would interfere with the 'return to home' feature on that control panel, but even renting a portable GPS simulator is prohibitively expensive. It would be nice if someone could record and publish genuine GPS signals that could be rebroadcast without the need for the simulator. That way all the 'return to home' UAVs could be 'returned' to the Atlantic - along with any passing GPS motorists.

An array of tethered helium balloons would act as barrage balloons, perhaps with netting between balloons. Alternatively, two directionable dirigibles hoisting a net.

Bin bag balloons would be unlikely to unlikely to snare the UAV but hundreds of them might and they are so cheap and easy to lift ( bag over a cardboard funnel over a <100 degree Celsius camp fire). Not one for the Greens admittedly.

Water rockets or a potato cannon could be used to bring one down although that seems unlikely since they are inaccurate and possibly arrestable. If you can modify the cannon to fire netting or safe sling-shot then that may work better.

Fireworks could be used to provide smoke cover and flak.

You can use cheap model aircraft to act as kamikazes.

Laser pens could be used to damage the UAV camera lens and also disorientate the IR sensors that they often use to establish the horizon.

You could use raised groundsheets or netting to provide roofed areas and corridors as cover.

You could just snap the aerials off the operators backpack. Hell, you could just shoot the operator with a potato cannon.

UAVs are tools that you can also use. Mark Thomas used a RC helicopter plus camera to peer into a military base. While transmitting video live to the ground is prohibitively expensive, you can use a memory-stick camera to fly-over and record where you cannot otherwise reach for less than £80. You can buy a cheap polystirene plane with a built in camera or you could just tape a better camera to a better model aircraft.

anybody beside me want one as a toy?

Mark Lawrence has made a few bob by spying on people as they go about their business.

As the director of AirRobot UK he supplies and operates a mini-helicopter fitted with CCTV to the police so they can collect evidence against demonstrators.

The military designed spotter drone was used to video and photograph supporters of Unite Against Fascism protesting against the BNP's Red White and Blue festival in Codnor, Derbyshire.

However, Lawrence is less than enthusiastic when the legitimate spotlight of public scrutiny focuses on his business.

The 38-year-old has not registered his company to deal with personal data with the Information Commissioner's Office.

Unless Airrobot can prove it is exempt from the Data Protection Act the firm which supplied spy equipment to the police will have committed a criminal offence.

The-sauce.org has now written to the compliance department at the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) requesting an investigation.

Companies involved in collecting data for “crime prevention and prosecution of offenders (including some CCTV systems)” must register, according to the ICO.

The quango states: “Under the Data Protection Act every organisation that processes personal information must notify the Information Commissioner’s Office, unless they are exempt. Failure to notify is a criminal offence.”

AirRobot is a German company but its UK subsidiary seems to be a one man band. It seems to have been originally run from Lawrence's semi-detached home in Sidney Street, Salisbury. The house was worth £202,000 in 2004.

The firm was set up in April last year and has not yet filed any accounts. His fellow director and only shareholder, Rebecca Judge, 38, resigned from the company in May this year.

Tosser
Airrobot is currently registered at Companies House at the UK Centre for Homeland Security. However, the building is run by the private military training company ISSEE which states he should not be using their address.

Asked whether Airrobot was exempt from registering as a data controller, Mr Lawrence said: “I cannot answer stuff like that, I'm not allowed. I have signed a non-disclosure agreement with the police. I would get into a lot of trouble.”

Asked about the decision of his fellow director to resign from the company, he added: “That's really pissed me off. You're a tosser. That has really hit a nerve there so just fuck off and don't call me again.”

Derbyshire Police has been asked whether AirRobot is exempt under the data protection act but has not yet responded.

National security
The force today refused to release video and photographs captured by the drone following a Freedom of Information Act. An appeal against this decision has been lodged by the-sauce.org.

The police state the data is exempt because it forms part of an on-going investigation and also sited health and safety as a grounds of refusal.

Derbyshire has also also refused to confirm or deny whether the information gathered by the “spy in the sky” has been handed over to special branch, other police forces or government departments.

Stuart Barlow, the Freedom of Information Manager at the force said publishing such information could impact on the security services, national security, criminal investigations and health and safety.