Found this in the cyberpunk subreddit in a post from 2 years ago with people complaining that people were over-reacting and it's 'just a camera on legs that will never be weaponized'. Cue San Francisco want to weaponize one a year later, also apparently Dallas used their bomb disabling robot to kill a sniper in 2016.
Here's some totally random paperwork on Spot's network setup! https://support.bostondynamics.com/s/article/Spot-network-setup
It should be noted that some versions of spot have both 5ghz and 2.4ghz wifi but should still be vulnerable to deauth attacks. Upon losing network connection for more than a few seconds the robot should sit down and turn off the motors. However, they do make an LTE capable version. :this-is-fine:
Is there any footage of someone trying to lasso one of these? I feel like you could go yee-haw on them
Imagine one with a hammer and sickle pattern grill over the face :soypoint-1:
Even a good pole could be used to flip it on it's back and pry that switch from a good safe distance
a long stick, with or without pointy end, the timeless weapon of the proletariat.
maybe it’s overkill for spot, but they’re really versatile and can be used to disable many of the state’s tools of oppression
Anything of a decent power at a reasonable size though? I know about those little spark-gap based units, but you gotta be right up on the electronics for them to work. Only other stuff I'm familiar with was some rather large stuff that I think they demoed at defcon some years back.
Spark gap transmitters are kinda jank. They emit noise across the entire radio spectrum, interfere with everything, and will draw the ire of the FCC. Probably one of the few things they will actually look into if it becomes an ongoing problem. Spark gap transmitters are extremely inefficient. Only a very tiny fraction of the power will be converted into RF at the correct frequency to interfere with the target. They are very easy to make, however. Literally, build a circuit which makes sparks - mission accomplished. Just don't electrocute yourself. Turn on an AM radio in the middle of the thunderstorm sometime, and you can observe this phenomenon yourself (don't walk around outdoors with an antenna in an electrical storm like an idiot though).
A much more effective device would specifically target the frequencies in use, putting all of its power into that bandwidth instead of wasting it jamming airplanes, satellites, broadcasts, and cell phones as well. This can be enhanced with a directional antenna like a dish or a yagi to increase the gain (stronger signal with same wattage) and mitigate some collateral damage. This type of device should only be used momentarily (i.e. temporarily disabling a drone). Anything permanent will be detected and investigated, as well as anything temporary which is actually leading to drone kills.
Modern radio systems built using spread spectrum technology are much more resilient against jamming. I do not know enough radio stuff to really know a good way to counter them. Due to their military applications, there is definitely a lot of research going into constructing them and jamming them however. It surely will be a lot more work than desoldering a resistor from a yaesu, plugging in the frequency and CTCSS tone for the municipal cops' analog FM repeater, and sharing your favorite N.W.A. songs with them.
If the bad frequency is not known, It is possible to investigate spectrum usage in your area using something like a RTLSDR (a USB software defined radio receiver). A RTLSDR combined with a directional antenna can be used to pinpoint what direction which signals are coming from. Different chips may be needed to operate at different frequency ranges. An ordinary RTLSDR (originally based on USB VHF/UHF TV tuner cards) won't be able to operate on the 2.4ghz and 5.0ghz bands. There are other chips which can do this. With radio equipment in general, there is no one size fits all. Radios either handle one job well, or several jobs kind of shitty.
Every now and then, amateur radio operators set up "Foxhunting" events, where contestants use radio equipment to hunt down the location of a hidden transmitter. You can find a lot of useful information about the techniques employed to do this (and perhaps, how to counter them) by searching for ham literature about foxhunting.
Totally unrelated, but the other day I rewatched Pump Up the Volume for the first time in like 30 years and it held up surprisingly well.
you just need a large enough power source and coil. you can make the coil urself and use a car battery for power
Idk if a car battery is a reasonably size though. Also I threw all mine in the ocean.
based, I will file this right next to my infographic about ceramics and sugar
Dallas used their bomb disabling robot to kill a sniper in 2016
Oh shit! I've been listening to this song lately! If this were a war
Holy shit. I don't know how I ended up in this month's old comment thread, but that song goes fucking hard. Thank you for sharing it.
Lol. You're welcome! I found it as part of this playlist of his "campfire" songs. couple more great bangers in there. Enjoy!
Literally just kick it in the air. It's a smallish light and partially plastic thing. The current ones are probably just to get people used to them. Bigger scarier ones will be justified by people kicking them, and those ones will actually be sketch.
If it’s internet connected you can hack it and commandeer it. If it has an LTE modem in it, its location will be traceable by authorities at all times.
Alternately, throw some sand on it. Those joints were developed in relatively sterile conditions and are exposed. The underlying components are too fine to function with a bunch of sand in their joints.
you can hack it and commandeer it.
this isn't a movie lol. Someone developing it would have to actively make it insecure for it to be "commandeer-able".
Not true at all. The vast majority of security vulnerabilities were bugs, not features. It’s possible to make most cars remote control nowadays. The security research is slow moving because of how expensive cars are, but literally everything with a computer in it is hackable somehow.
This is true, but the sequence of 'robot appears and is a threat, so I on the fly hacked it' isn't realistic. Firstly do you usually bring a computer to a demonstration? People aren't even supposed to have their phones on or they will be tracked. Secondly, you'd need to have spent time figuring out what vulnerabilities there are and how to exploit them beforehand and these fuckers ain't cheap or widespread enough for easy access yet.
That said, it also isn't realistic that these robots will get used as is, with easily accessed buttons that lock out their movement, or battery packs you can simply remove.
Oh yeah, I didn’t mean that people would improvise an exploit on the spot. I’ve been in groups that have tracked the specific models of equipment used by local cops and would track public exploits for them. Yielded some neat results a few times, particularly one with an IMSI catcher.
