bdboyle

Nothing to see here…move along.

We let it happen. Beat feet when innocently advised to get the local FD to get it out of the tree? Intercepted at the airport with a one-way ticket back to China? A “Chinese student”? Yeah…right?

Wake up. No doubt a CCP army officer posing as a ‘student’ in an advanced engineering or technical degree field soaking up our technology and insights and making a monthly report back to his superiors in the people’s army. That’s what the enemy (and despite the rhetoric and posing of politicians and media, China is NOT our friend.) does. And what we do, too. It’s tradecraft. And the stakes are high. The consequences can be serious.

You can’t fly a plane into the FRZ around DC without all sorts of hoops to jump through and that includes the threat of deadly force. so, it’s against the law to shoot down a drone flying over sensitive or national security areas? We won’t shoot down high-altitude balloons transiting our airspace which were tracked as being launched from the CCP? WTH? Change the law, then. National sovereignty is more important than hurting the feelings of a foreign political system whose aim is to ensure our defeat.

Shoot the damn thing down…and if convicted, the perp should suffer the traditional punishment for spies.

1 reply

jjbaker

Many drone manufacturers log flight activity.

DJI has georeferenced areas of allowed and restricted operation. At least here in Europe they actively prevent the operation of my own drone due to close proximity to a local military installation and a small airport. Mine will beep, blink and otherwise move only as high as I can throw it - returning to earth without further intervention by me.

By definition it should be possible to determine where that little overpriced ventilator went. As its a matter of national security… privacy should be waaaay out the window.

Then again, just because a Chinese national studying in the US likes to operate drones in close proximity to military installations, just for fun of course, prior to booking a one way flight back home, doesn’t justify any legal consequences. ACLU on it, yet?

He/she/ it may well have temporarly identified as a habitual one way flyer or as a harmless foreign person enjoying the hobby of causing national security issues in the United States, as some form of personality expression.

shalom

Anyone who believes that a person who grew up in an autocratic regime like that of china and claims to not know that what he did was strictly forbidden must have his head examined. if he had tried to do the same in China he would have faced at best life in prison.
Yes there is a point were extreme tolerance becomes extreme stupidity.

Steve_Miller

Yeah! Damn freedom! Let’s have the state tell us everything we’re allowed to do under threat of deadly force! Someone cutting through your yard? Kill him! Dog poops on your lawn? Kill, kill!!! Freedom is for commies!

Good grief. The entire world can get insanely high resolution satellite imagery free from Google. You can bet the world powers have 100x better resolution (and possibly WAY better if they take imagery from LEO satellites). On top of that, you can fly your own plane unmolested just outside of R and P airspace and take pictures into it. What are we really worried about here? If government contractors are leaving classified material out visible to the world, our government’s classified material rules (and common sense) says it’s their own fault for exposing it. I don’t know, buy a cover? A tarp? A building?

A harmless balloon (even if it were LOADED with cameras and intel gear) or drone with camera is hardly justification to kill or even shoot the thing down. Or worse, change the rules regarding airspace and restrict our freedom to fly.

If you’re worried about your classified stuff being seen from above, put a tarp over it. Sheesh.

2 replies

teachap

I agree with the most part @steve_miller.
One questions: is the picture at the beginning of the article legal?

1 reply

Steve_Miller

I have three separate answers, depending on your perspective:

1. There is no restricted airspace here. In fact, there isn’t even controlled airspace in this location. It’s right near the James River bridge (vfrmap). No reason you couldn’t fly your own airplane here and take this picture.
2. There are great high resolution satellite images available. This isn’t exactly the location, but it there’s lots of detail visible on this submarine. And what’s that I see? A Tarp?!
3. The company themselves posted this photo, and you can find it a few scrolls down here. (Which, incidentally, the image is named “colortouchedMay2019aerialDroneFramegrab_hero.jpeg”)

So… Yes?

3 replies

k.h.goodrich

Yup, correct. I used to fly out of the LFI aeroclub. For what it’s worth, the photo in the article and the HII website isn’t Newport News Shipbuilding referenced in the article. It’s a different Huntington Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi

Skypark

As pointed out, there is no restricted or controlled airspace at that location, so what did they charge him with? Military bases often have “no photography” postings on the facility itself, but a civilian facility, and with the photo not taken from on the facility?

Anyway, I have no doubt the Chinese do in fact have active & ongoing intelligence operations here, just as I am sure we do there. Still, the only reason I can imagine a Chinese agency special-ordering such a photo would be someone wanting a closeup or angle view of some specific element of a specific project, and likely also at a specific point in the build. Outside of that, satellite should be just as good. Inquiring minds want to know more.

1 reply

rkphillipsjr

The best commercial satellite image pales in comparison to what a cheap drone can see.

travbo

I just went down a rabbit hole on this. They charged him under a 1938 law forbidding photography of certain military installations designated by the president from the ground or aircraft. The applicable designation is a Truman executive order from 1950, still in force, which applies the designation very broadly. There is very little case law on this statute, which often acts as more of a probable cause generator than a thing that is prosecuted. Quite an unusual case.

1 reply

rpstrong

“…it’s their own fault for exposing it. I don’t know, buy a cover? A tarp? A building?..”

They did it back in WW II days - remember Operation Camouflage?

Skypark

Interesting, thanks!
By coincidence, a newspaper (WSJ) just ran a researched article on Chinese intelligence world operations. One aspect noted was that the Chinese make unusually heavy use of what I guess you could call “citizen agents”, many of whom are in the targeted country as bona fide tourists, students, etc. Also according to the article, they don’t typically expend much effort in their agent’s behalf if they are caught