Headline: The Age of Drone Vandalism Begins With an Epic NYC

[KroLazuxy_87]

The Age of Drone Vandalism Begins With an Epic NYC Tag

Arthur Holland Michel | 04.30.15


IN THE EARLY hours of Wednesday morning, the age of robotic graffiti was born. KATSU, a well-known graffiti artist and vandal, used a hacked Phantom drone to paint a giant red scribble across Kendall Jenner’s face on one of New York City’s largest and most viewed billboards. By all accounts, it is the first time that a drone has been deployed for a major act of public vandalism.

In April last year, KATSU made headlines when he demonstrated that he had figured out how to attach a spray can to an off-the-shelf DJI Phantom drone. At the time, he was only using the drone to paint canvasses for white-wall galleries. But he assured the world that soon he would take his mad invention out into the streets and create enormous tags in places that were previously inaccessible to even the most daring and acrobatic taggers. Now, he appears to have made good on his promise in grand fashion.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/We12p6yvNW0[/youtube]

“It turned out surprisingly well,” said KATSU, whose previous stunts include using a hacked fire-extinguisher to vandalise L.A. MOCA. “It’s exciting to see its first potential use as a device for vandalism,” he added, cheerfully.

The Calvin Klein billboard, one of New York City’s largest, sits at the busy intersection of Houston St and Lafayette St. The graffiti drone’s potential for troublemaking on an unprecedentedly grand scale is obvious. The billboard, which was previously graced by a topless, (perhaps) digitally-enhanced Justin Bieber, is absolutely gigantic, about six stories tall. It would have been almost impossible to tag Jenner’s face using the traditional methods. One could rappel off the top of the building or use a cherry picker, but neither option is exactly safe, or subtle, or quick enough that one could do it without cops on regular patrol spotting it. With the drone, by contrast, it took less than a minute. Still, the artist admitted, “It was a bit tense.” (Needless to say, the stunt was extremely illegal).

As the domestic drone industry grows feverishly, and multicopters like DJI’s Phantom become cheaper and more powerful, artists have been eager to experiment with the technology. It was only a matter of time, then, that people would figure out that the drone has enormous potential for subversive acts on the streets, where defying the laws of gravity is the whole point. Given the enduring privacy, safety, and legal concerns around the technology, conceptually it makes a certain amount of sense that it would find uses at the peripheries of what most people (let alone the law) would consider acceptable. KATSU’s scribble high above SoHo might not look like much, but it represents the potential that drones have to transform graffiti forever.


GRAFFITI ARTIST KATSU RECENTLY DEBUTED A SERIES OF PAINTINGS MADE WITH A SPRAY-PAINT-WIELDING DRONE.PHOTOS BY KATSU AND THE HOLE

Still, police departments across the country probably don’t need to start panicking quite yet. This is, after all, graffiti drone 1.0. KATSU said that it can be temperamental and unpredictable, especially when it shifts perpendicular to the surface that its painting. The controls can be twitchy. “Seventy percent of the concentration is in maintaining this equilibrium with the two dimensional surface while you are painting,” he explained. We have a ways to go until drones are capable of autonomously blasting tags while their artist masters relax at home.

But that is the plan, and KATSU’s stunt this week was proof of concept. He is also gearing up to release a new, more user-friendly version of the graffiti drone “very soon.” While he refused to give me too many details, he did say that it would have some element of computer vision to help with stability.

Still, even graffiti drone 1.0 is something to be reckoned with. It has made what was up until yesterday an impossible tag look easy. KATSU himself seems to have been caught a little off guard by how powerful the drone has proven to be. “It’s a bit frightening.”

My mind immediately starts brainstorming ways to make this work faster and produce better graffiti. Then I remind my mind how terrible of an idea this probably is.

[Patroklos]

Will robotic graffiti take away some of the point? If you believe in the romance and rebellion of it part of all that is sneaking in and brazenly tagging in person with something artistic in its own right. I don't get the same vibe from a robot putting a random squiggle across a billboard with a pre programed drawing.

Which isn't to say digital art is not itself worthy of the medium, plenty of it is damn near masterpiece worthy but something is missing here even if it was not just a squiggle. I also suspect this could turn into an arms race, with advertisers having their own version that simply repairs vandalism. Not likely but the idea of some sort of bug zapper type instrument or anti drone water cannon to prevent it in the firs place just popped into my head. there are such things used to shoo away birds even now.

[cmdrjones]

Will robotic graffiti take away some of the point? If you believe in the romance and rebellion of it part of all that is sneaking in and brazenly tagging in person with something artistic in its own right. I don't get the same vibe from a robot putting a random squiggle across a billboard with a pre programed drawing.

Which isn't to say digital art is not itself worthy of the medium, plenty of it is damn near masterpiece worthy but something is missing here even if it was not just a squiggle. I also suspect this could turn into an arms race, with advertisers having their own version that simply repairs vandalism. Not likely but the idea of some sort of bug zapper type instrument or anti drone water cannon to prevent it in the firs place just popped into my head. there are such things used to shoo away birds even now.

Perhaps a localized EMP burst? If the thing to be protected is high up and far away from pedestrians, install a net to catch the dead drones for evidence and ZAP away...

Also, using these for crime is far more dangerous. Drones w spray paint can cover CCTV cameras En masse thus blocking the filming of escape routes etc for getaway vehicles, or can monitor police movements.. Or better yet, armed with commercially available chemical deterrents, they could create panics or clear streets of people, or even disable cops without protective gear....

Or, during a robbery of high priced lightweight items you could rob a jewelry or gem store, attach bags to drones and fly the evidence/merchandise away and split up inot a crowd with no evidence on you (use prop weapons, lightweight fakes, or simply break them apart and scatter the pieces as you run off.)

[Starglider]

Yet another correct prediction from this 1993 documentary.

[Purple]

Perhaps a localized EMP burst? If the thing to be protected is high up and far away from pedestrians, install a net to catch the dead drones for evidence and ZAP away...

Why not just shoot it? Catch the drone when its standing still and give it a good whack with a high powered rifle and it'll go down.

[Grumman]

Why not just shoot it? Catch the drone when its standing still and give it a good whack with a high powered rifle and it'll go down.

You'd have to be careful, considering that there's a building behind it. Shooting Katsu, on the other hand...

[Irbis]

Also, using these for crime is far more dangerous. Drones w spray paint can cover CCTV cameras En masse thus blocking the filming of escape routes etc for getaway vehicles, or can monitor police movements.. Or better yet, armed with commercially available chemical deterrents, they could create panics or clear streets of people, or even disable cops without protective gear...

What about say dozen pipes stacked in Katyusha-like pattern, each holding two 5.56 mm bullets in recoilless arrangement? Add electrical firing mechanism, drawing from drone battery, perfect terror/assassination tool.

Why not just shoot it? Catch the drone when its standing still and give it a good whack with a high powered rifle and it'll go down.

Okay, and what exactly you are proposing to shot?

Drone is already small target, especially without outer shell, but parts that need to be damaged to reliably bring it down are order of magnitude smaller. It has 4 engines, redundant batteries and no flammable fuel - maybe if you hit controlling chip, but good luck with that.

Paint it some masking colours, move it randomly and even hitting will be pure chance.

[Broomstick]

The problem with this sort of thing is that I can think of far, far worse things to spray with paint than billboards, and far worse things to attach to a drone than a can of spray paint.

I also despair because this is really going to fuck up aviation hobbies in all their forms.

[General Zod]

I'm only surprised that somebody didn't do this sooner. It seems like it'd be simple enough with a bit of programming skills and some arduinos.

[Grumman]

What about say dozen pipes stacked in Katyusha-like pattern, each holding two 5.56 mm bullets in recoilless arrangement? Add electrical firing mechanism, drawing from drone battery, perfect terror/assassination tool.

I think you just described Metal Storm.

[Purple]

What about say dozen pipes stacked in Katyusha-like pattern, each holding two 5.56 mm bullets in recoilless arrangement? Add electrical firing mechanism, drawing from drone battery, perfect terror/assassination tool.

Two words. Falling bullets.

Okay, and what exactly you are proposing to shot?

The drone, I guess. I really don't know the size of these things. But people do shoot clay pigeons and stuff and those ain't that big. That's why I asked though.

[Irbis]

I think you just described Metal Storm.

No, metal storm is several bullets with power loads in one barrel. I meant a pipe/barrel with powder load perfectly in the centre, capped with bullet at each end, so that firing it neutralized recoil and didn't disturb flight.

Two words. Falling bullets.

What?

The drone, I guess. I really don't know the size of these things. But people do shoot clay pigeons and stuff and those ain't that big.

Clay pigeons A) are painted bright colours, B) travel in perfectly straight line with constant speed, C) are made from soft materials designed for flashy shatter on slightest hit. You'd be better comparing the difficulty to hitting small bird, but birds are also order of magnitude easier to damage than drones.

[Elheru Aran]

...you haven't shot clay pigeons, have you? They don't travel in a straight line, they describe an arc, and depending on how they're cast they can do a fairly wicked curve. The bright colours and the shattering I will give you (though you won't notice the colours much, or at least I never did when I was shooting them), but that wasn't Purple's point. They're a lot smaller than drones. If you can hit a clay pigeon, you can hit a drone that's hovering and trying to spray a surface. Hitting it in mid-air might be another job, but unless the controller knows it's being targeted he's unlikely to be terribly evasive.

[Purple]

What?

Falling bullets kill people. A bullet fired into the air can and will come down at an angle and if it hits someone it can do horrible things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

Clay pigeons A) are painted bright colours, B) travel in perfectly straight line with constant speed, C) are made from soft materials designed for flashy shatter on slightest hit. You'd be better comparing the difficulty to hitting small bird, but birds are also order of magnitude easier to damage than drones.

As I said, I have no idea. I stand corrected.

[biostem]

You'd be better off sort of draping string/cord kind of in front of the billboard such that you can't get close enough to hit the surface with the spray paint stream - if the drone tries to close in, it gets tangled in it - kind of like a spiderweb.

[Irbis]

Falling bullets kill people. A bullet fired into the air can and will come down at an angle and if it hits someone it can do horrible things.

Um, if you use it as terror/assassination tool, you obviously don't care about that, so...

...you haven't shot clay pigeons, have you? They don't travel in a straight line, they describe an arc, and depending on how they're cast they can do a fairly wicked curve.

Um, what?

Yes, I saw clay target shooting on hunting fairs several times and they do nothing of the sort. Target thrower is near/behind the shooter and from his point of view it goes first up, then down in straight line, unless you have strong wind. To do an arc, you'd need to place it far to the side of shooter, which is possible I guess but no certified shooting range in Poland outside of military has that much space so it's never done. Maybe it's done differently elsewhere, okay, but it doesn't change the point the criminal drone won't have steady, predictable speed and trajectory.

They're a lot smaller than drones.

Look at second photo in this thread. Unless you're trying to hit the can, drone without outer shell presents only engines or battery as a target, both of which are much smaller than target disc. Maybe it's possible when drone hovers, but it only will hover near the target and shooting it will risk damaging it. Which might mean collateral damage will be worse than paint one.

[Simon_Jester]

Perhaps a localized EMP burst? If the thing to be protected is high up and far away from pedestrians, install a net to catch the dead drones for evidence and ZAP away...

I would think that an EMP weapon is likely to be harder to build than a water cannon. There's a reason that EMP weapons are still science fiction for most practical purposes.

I'd also think that it's more likely to backfire or cause trouble, since you're legally liable if an EMP weapon fries someone's pacemaker, but a water cannon's spray will generally disperse beyond short range and be relatively harmless.

Perhaps a localized EMP burst? If the thing to be protected is high up and far away from pedestrians, install a net to catch the dead drones for evidence and ZAP away...

Why not just shoot it? Catch the drone when its standing still and give it a good whack with a high powered rifle and it'll go down.

Because having guys firing bursts of gunfire around in an urban area at targets that aren't actually immobile and can maneuver in three dimensions is quite dangerous to bystanders?

[Starglider]

Birdshot is very likely to disable pretty much any non-military light drone, by shorting the battery, destroying a rotor blade (generally non-recoverable) or hitting any of the zero-redundancy electronics. This is viable for police self-defence (SWAT teams will probably get anti-drone lasers sooner or later), but even in the US where shotguns are fairly common it's hardly practical to blast away at any drone that looks suspicous. Note that fixed wing drones are both harder to hit and less vulnerable to damage than quadcopters.

I doubt non-state actors would use a quadcopter drone carrying a gun as an assassination tool, the stabilisation problem is tricky and the effective range is low. Much simpler, cheaper and for the most part more effective to just give it a small explosive charge and fly it into the target; this is in fact how military light offensive drones (that DARPA is currently researching work). State intelligence services could spend millions building aerial sniper bots, but most of the time if a small suicide drone can't get the job done they would probably just use a missile fired from a conventional military drone instead.

I would think that an EMP weapon is likely to be harder to build than a water cannon. There's a reason that EMP weapons are still science fiction for most practical purposes.

They are harder to build but the electronics on consumer drones are unshielded and fairly vulnerable. In fact the vast majority of drones aren't autonomous and a simple jammer will cause them to go into 'emergency landing mode' (especially if you jam GPS as well as the control link). This is inconvenient for bystanders but probably not so much as firing electronics-destroying microwave beams or volleys of birdshot. Jammers are also much cheaper to build and install than steerable automated military grade microwave beam generators. Really soild state lasers are the best (potential) solution for automated UAV defense though.

[Purple]

Um, if you use it as terror/assassination tool, you obviously don't care about that, so...

My bad. I thought you wanted to use the system to shoot down drones, not to shoot people from a drone. Must have misunderstood.

[General Zod]

You'd be better off sort of draping string/cord kind of in front of the billboard such that you can't get close enough to hit the surface with the spray paint stream - if the drone tries to close in, it gets tangled in it - kind of like a spiderweb.

That only works if the surface is accessible. The whole point of the drone is to get at places you can't access.

[biostem]

You'd be better off sort of draping string/cord kind of in front of the billboard such that you can't get close enough to hit the surface with the spray paint stream - if the drone tries to close in, it gets tangled in it - kind of like a spiderweb.

That only works if the surface is accessible. The whole point of the drone is to get at places you can't access.

How would the surface of a billboard *not* be accessible? You had to get up there to place the billboard in the first place... Something like a fine net made of fishing line would be more than enough.

Heck, I bet a high powered water gun or paintball gun would be enough to bring down these drones.

[Titan Uranus]

...you haven't shot clay pigeons, have you? They don't travel in a straight line, they describe an arc, and depending on how they're cast they can do a fairly wicked curve.

Um, what?

Yes, I saw clay target shooting on hunting fairs several times and they do nothing of the sort. Target thrower is near/behind the shooter and from his point of view it goes first up, then down in straight line, unless you have strong wind. To do an arc, you'd need to place it far to the side of shooter, which is possible I guess but no certified shooting range in Poland outside of military has that much space so it's never done. Maybe it's done differently elsewhere, okay, but it doesn't change the point the criminal drone won't have steady, predictable speed and trajectory.

Damn, clay shooting must be awfully boring in Poland.
There is a clay course not more than fifteen minutes away from me that has twenty-four different clay-tossing machines, all but two of which do not fire from behind the shooter, but from the side. The course also has at least four clay-shooters which fire just a couple of feet off the ground and fire targets which skip along the ground as they enter your field of fire, in addition most of the machines have a built-in element of randomness to them, fireing at slightly or wildly different angles or from different machines each time the fire button is pressed.


In addition to what starglider said, modern commercial drones are nowhere near as fast as birds or clays are, certainly not if they are painting the side of a building or improbably lining up a shot, As wel as the far easier for now jamming.
I also really doubt that it would be worth the trouble to armor or provide redundant anything except communications to drones whose primary advantage is cheapness, at the end of the day.

[Gaidin]

At least draw a penis. I mean...if you can't draw that it's just a wasted opportunity...

[GuppyShark]

At least draw a penis. I mean...if you can't draw that it's just a wasted opportunity...

Agreed.

How is it anything other than simple property damage (no more artistic than setting it on fire) if it's just a red line haphazardly scribbled across a billboard.

[His Divine Shadow]

Birdshot isn't dangerous to anyone when falling unless it lands in their mouths and they happen to swallow it or something. Though I wonder if there aren't better methods.