Chinese citizen uses drone to photograph US Navy shipyard

[Flightplan]

Saw this article this morning. Posting for awareness.

Home To US Nuclear Submarines, Chinese Citizen Flies UAV Over Virginia Shipyard; Comes After Norflock Incident

The United States Department of Justice has charged a Chinese citizen for using a drone to capture images of a Virginia shipyard engaged in the construction of US Navy nuclear submarines. China Scans ‘World’s Largest Naval Base’ In USA; US Navy’s Norfolk Naval Station ‘Unmasked’ By Spy Satellite...

www.eurasiantimes.com

 

[mavic3usa]

In this article, there is a entire section on this topic:

Chinese Drones Over Critical Defense Assets​

 

[anotherlab]

The Wired article referenced in the Home article has more details.

According to an affidavit filed by FBI special agent Sara Shalowitz in February, a shipyard security officer alerted the Naval Criminal Investigative Service to Shi’s actions. The affidavit alleges that on January 6, Shi was flying a drone in “inclement weather” before it got stuck in a neighbor’s tree. When Shi, who is a Chinese citizen, approached the neighbor for help, he was questioned about his nationality and purpose for being in the area. The unnamed resident took photos of Shi, his license plate, and his ID, and called the police. The affidavit alleges that Shi was “very nervous” when questioned by police and “did not have any real reasons” for flying a drone in bad weather. The police gave Shi the number for the fire department and said he would need to stay on the scene. Instead, he returned the rental car an hour later and left Hampton Roads, Virginia, abandoning the drone.

When the FBI seized the drone and pulled the photos off its memory card, they discovered images that special agent Shalowitz said she recognized as being taken at Newport News Shipyard and BAE Systems, which is a 45-minute drive away. The affidavit states that on the day Shi took the photos, the Newport News Shipyard was “actively manufacturing” aircraft carriers and Virginia class nuclear submarines.

It seems odd that a student in Minnesota would fly to Virginia, and then drive 45 minutes to fly a drone at a shipyard known to work on US Navy vessels. And then abandon the drone and fly home after being told by the police to remain at the scene. He could be guilty of only being scared and doing something stupid, but it does look suspicious.

 

[GFields]

Saw this article this morning. Posting for awareness.

Home To US Nuclear Submarines, Chinese Citizen Flies UAV Over Virginia Shipyard; Comes After Norflock Incident

The United States Department of Justice has charged a Chinese citizen for using a drone to capture images of a Virginia shipyard engaged in the construction of US Navy nuclear submarines. China Scans ‘World’s Largest Naval Base’ In USA; US Navy’s Norfolk Naval Station ‘Unmasked’ By Spy Satellite...

www.eurasiantimes.com

What bothers me about this is that the article does not mention the drone manufacturer and assumes it to be a DJI (Chinese-manufactured). Just because he is Chinese doesn't mean he is flying a Chinese-manufactured drone no more than me being American means that I'm flying an American-manufactured drone.

Another question that begs to be answered is, what is the airspace regulations there? I would be certain that a NFZ would be in place. I know that people hack DJI drones to remove the GEO fencing but I think more information is in order before I can come to any conclusions.

 

[MS Coast]

Oddly, the shipyard has no indicated flight restrictions per AirHub. There are blanket restrictions against flying near US Navy vessels in general, but I don't know whether they apply to vessels under construction in private shipyards.

About 30 years ago while doing a sailboat delivery, I passed within 200 yards of the Newport News facility and was somewhat surprised not to see a more robust security presence. I remember thinking that someone with a reasonably fast small boat would have a decent shot at broadsiding a ship before they could be stopped.

Based on the story, this doesn't really sound like the work of a highly trained and skilled intelligence operative.

 

[Cafguy]

Do they mean that Naval Base that I can view in perfect detail on Google Earth. Probably turns out it actually was a student with a drone that happened to take some pics of some ships and didnt know better to check.

 

[mavic3usa]

Do they mean that Naval Base that I can view in perfect detail on Google Earth. Probably turns out it actually was a student with a drone that happened to take some pics of some ships and didnt know better to check.

I am 100% sure that explanation won't work at his trial. At the same time, I also believe he will take the plea bargain and the way we'll be left with this case is he illegally took unauthorized photos of sensitive equipment, we caught him among several other drone violations, we punished him; we are taking [drastic but necessary] steps to prevent this in the future.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I am 100% sure that explanation won't work at his trial. At the same time, I also believe he will take the plea bargain and the way we'll be left with this case is he illegally took unauthorized photos of sensitive equipment, we caught him among several other drone violations, we punished him; we are taking [drastic but necessary] steps to prevent this in the future.

The only thing relevant I'm seeing here are the words 'Chinese', 'spy' and 'drone'... all of which are a gift-horse for the lobbyists and political Washington sharks during their efforts to turn opinion in favour of their current "crusade".

 

[chadCO]

The puritans will take the incident and will inflate it, overblow it and then present it for further reasons that all drones should be banned. When in fact if the facility was competently guarded he would have never even been near it.

 

[Nanny Ogg]

It would be funny if he was flying a Skidio drone.

 

[anotherlab]

If he had used a DJI drone, it would not have transmitted the data back to China.

If you ban DJI, the bad actors will just go out and buy 6" FPV drones with a GoPro.

 

[JimSteadman]

One more win for the anti-drone crowd. All the right buzzwords - Drone, Chinese and Spy. The clowns who want to restrict Chinese Drones will have a field day. They conveniently overlook the fact that their cellphones have a lot more info on them than they realize and they are nearly all made in China.

 

[DOC LEMIEUX]

And we all wonder we have no fly zones and Geo-Spaces.

 

[rawman001]

If the area isn't a no fly zone, and isn't a geo locked space, it's not illegal to fly or photograph. If I was building something classified, I wouldn't do it out in the open.

 

[anotherlab]

If the area isn't a no fly zone, and isn't a geo locked space, it's not illegal to fly or photograph. If I was building something classified, I wouldn't do it out in the open.

That is not completely accurate in the US. For this situation, 18 USC 795: Photographing and sketching defense installations can prevent you from photographing restricted locations and equipment.

 

[MS Coast]

That is not completely accurate in the US. For this situation, 18 USC 795: Photographing and sketching defense installations can prevent you from photographing restricted locations and equipment.

@anotherlab, that's a good reference. The Newport News Shipyard is definitely covered, as is all military installations and areas.

Excerpts:

I hereby define the following as vital military and naval installations or equipment requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto:

(a) Any military, naval, or air-force reservation, post, arsenal, proving ground, range, mine field, camp, base, airfield, fort, yard, station, district, or area

(f) Any commercial establishment engaged in the development or manufacture of classified military or naval arms, munitions, equipment, designs, ships, aircraft, or vessels for the United States Army, Navy, or Air Force.​

 

[mavic3usa]

That is not completely accurate in the US. For this situation, 18 USC 795: Photographing and sketching defense installations can prevent you from photographing restricted locations and equipment.

Was going to say the same, for sure there are certain images that are prohibited no matter what; regardless of where you are, where the [submarine control panel] is located or seen from, etc. However, just want to clarify for the broader audience, just because it's a military installation doesn't make it illegal or because it makes weapons (tanks). You can stand outside the gates in the Costco parking lot and snap pictures of the fighter displays and the guard shack all day long. Military jets landing on the runway, if you can see them, no worries. I wouldn't use a super long lens to get pictures of the B-2 in the hanger but when you use a drone, it's always going to cause problems.

 

[MS Coast]

However, just want to clarify for the broader audience, just because it's a military installation doesn't make it illegal or because it makes weapons (tanks).

Your "clarification" directly contradicts 18 USC 795: Photographing and sketching defense installations. And there's no reference to drones to distinguish them from other means of acquiring an image. That document states that it is in fact illegal, in both cases.

",,, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission ..."

Further along in the document, it defines vital installations to include all military installations and more.

 

[anotherlab]

Your "clarification" directly contradicts 18 USC 795: Photographing and sketching defense installations. And there's no reference to drones to distinguish them from other means of acquiring an image. That document states that it is in fact illegal, in both cases.

",,, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission ..."

Further along in the document, it defines vital installations to include all military installations and more.

I don't know if 18 USC 795 covers all military installations and equipment. Section 1 starts with

All military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which are now classified, designated, or marked under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force as "top secret", "secret", "confidential", or "restricted", and all military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which may hereafter be so classified, designated, or marked with the approval or at the direction of the President, and located within:

In this case, it would be a fair assumption that naval ships under development would be classified under one of the above categories.

 

[mavic3usa]

Your "clarification" directly contradicts 18 USC 795: Photographing and sketching defense installations. And there's no reference to drones to distinguish them from other means of acquiring an image. That document states that it is in fact illegal, in both cases.

",,, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission ..."

Further along in the document, it defines vital installations to include all military installations and more.

No worries, it's a common misunderstanding. Same with the whole "critical infrastructure" claim.