What can you realistically do if you’re targeted by domestic drone or satellite surveillance?

>>105816281 (OP)
Nothing actually.

>>105816320
>>105816281 (OP)
this
you could program swarms to always have eyes on the target or his current location without human involvement
in the onion threat protection model your only counter-measures are in the "dont get spotted" layer

>>105816281 (OP)
Give them a show

>>105816320
Defeatist
>>105816333
Scary
>>105816375
Stupid

>>105816382
There's no need to sign your own posts

>>105816382
>Scary
idk in practice it means nothing if you have a good opsec
because thats how you defend against that technology:
dont attract attention
and if you attract attention, dont leave traces that lead to you

soooo its would be "dont get spotted" then "if you do, dont get acquired" in the dimension of cybersec
but still in "the dont get spotted" category when drones are involved
( "onion" model:)
(dont get spotted
if you do, dont get acquired
if you do, dont get hit
if you do, dont get penetrated)

>>105816382
No, if a military puts an advanced drone or sattelite on you a civilian, you are quite literally economically incapable of ever defending yourself. You are a subject to the country. There is nothing you can do. It is an economical lock. Even 300mil+ would be ineffective.

>>105816465
Prove this wrong.

>>105816382
actually
you could evade drones too
but its extremely hard, nigh impossible
you would have to try and jam your opponents sensors
you could evade pursuers on the ground
and blind the drones
but you would have to blind em in the visible/near visible range and in the ir range
and be in a forested area because otherwise you'd have to add radar and lidar to the sensors
and hope the weather is heavily overcast to prevent satellite and airplane surveliance
jamming light-based sensors will probably consist in sending a laser of the appropriate wavelentgh into the sensor, but given the distances involved and the size of the target, i think its safe to say that you would need a drone or other automaton of your own to be able to pull that off
you might need to keep a laser beam on a traget the size of a penny that might be moving dozens of miles per hour, and be a couple kilometers away if not better
you int doing that by hand.
even with an automaton it would be a challenge

>>105816465
Basically you’d have to prove it, provide evidence and then try to take them to court

>>105816281 (OP)
shit yourself and jerk off

Lift a sign that says "gay if you shoot"

>>105816489
You are hit by a drone explosive, your jamming system was only 60% effective after 5 years of full time maximum skill work>>105816489

>>105816281 (OP)
cease and desist, Osama

>>105816281 (OP)
You are the smartest person on planet earth, you spent your entire lifetime working on this, you ran out of time.

>>105816517
yeah no, im not counting on it
im just saying that it could be possible
the military has such tech, thats their whole visual recognition-powered cameras they have on their planes and choppers
that shit is extremely precise
with an adequate ai you could use a similar tech to make it target suspected lenses
maybe

if the assignment is to prevent a direct hit then a shotgun hooked to an arduino so to speak would be enough. eh, lets be realistic, make it a raspberry pi
its hilariously easy to build something that could shoot a drone down from a range of ~50 meters
the hardest part would be the mechanical design because you have to move the barrel quickly and precisely

>>105816517
kek
rn on the shitter i thought about a nifty design:
electric ignition shell stack
floating barrel
BUT
last shell isnt ammo
its actually a blank with salted water loaded backwards because the barrel assembly is actually a recoilless gun
the last shot negates most if not all the recoil
and this way you can keep the mount extra light, making the job of fast and precise actuation much easier

minovsky particles

I would simply fly to Russia.
t. Snowden