Would you support a lawsuit over Remote ID?

[Chip]

Many of you are only pointing out govt use of RID. Let's not forget the public at large will have access to the info.

For the car analogy, it's as if you could tune into an FM station where you could hear the car's plate number, where the car is and where it came from, how fast it is driving, right from the comfort of your living room.

Yes, I agree. The reason that I emphasize governmental action is because the US and state constitutions limit state not private action. But the forced public broadcast of data raises not just constitutional but other serious concerns which makes it even worse.

 

[Chip]

I'm not, but using the little kid angle for sympathy won't work. My answer would be FAA's answer, and probably the court's answer.

But if you used an adult as an example, which we have been doing, they might listen as an adult would be legal to pilot. Unfortunately that had been brought up during proposal comments and FAA's response as I was made to understand is laughable.

Yes, I recognized that my analogy was a distraction but for the record you may have misunderstood the purpose. Its not so much sympathy as scoffing at the notion that the government and the public needs to know pilot and flight data of every little drone (250gms+) that is being flown in the park with all manner of flight restrictions, warnings etc. already built into it.

 

[brett8883]

I may have the gilded the lilly a bit with the reference to Johnny! Brett, you are right on target with this:

More than electronic license plate readers the analogy would seem to me more like if the government required on board GPS units in cars that let cops identify speeders remotely and track down violators. I firmly believe the public would never accept such measures. I don’t see how this is any different.

If I may expound a bit further. The US Supreme Court said that government could not put GPS device on a suspect's vehicle and track its movements without a search warrant in US v Jones (2012). The US Supreme Court said that government may not track a suspect's movements by using cell site simulators and their cell phone without a search warrant in US v Carpenter (2018).

I do not see how anyone can trivialize the idea of the FAA forcing UAV pilots from corporate commercial to Joe Blow Hobbyist to publicly broadcast their ID, location and flight details to the general public.

View attachment 120960

Love it! Chip do you know what our next steps should would be? Are there any existing organizations that would want to help given the wider context of the Pandora’s box this opens as far as government surveillance, privacy, and personal safety?

 

[Chip]

Love it! Chip do you know what our next steps should would be? Are there any existing organizations that would want to help given the wider context of the Pandora’s box this opens as far as government surveillance, privacy, and personal safety?

Brett, I agree with your basic analysis 100%. But I also believe this:



I am going to review a few articles and reply further. In the interim, fly safe, fly under the radar...

 

[brett8883]

Brett, I agree with your basic analysis 100%. But I also believe this:

View attachment 120972

I am going to review a few articles and reply further. In the interim, fly safe, fly under the radar...

Thanks Chip!

 

[maelstrom]

Otherwise they are going to have to come out with all new versions of all their lines or stop selling drones in 18 months which seems a unlikely.

Why are either of those options the only ones? What’s to stop manufacturers or third parties from making small, compliant add-on modules for older drones?

 

[anotherlab]

If little Johnny is flying his drone down at the park how would he know he is being tracked by a sex predator with a cell phone? Or does little Johnny just have to live with it?

That analogy fails because little johnny would be too young to fly a drone that had RID mandated and the sexual predator would monitor the park to target any child, drone or no drone.

 

[brett8883]

Why are either of those options the only ones? What’s to stop manufacturers or third parties from making small, compliant add-on modules for older drones?

They will but they can’t sell new drones without built in RID after 18 months.

 

[Texbow]

The problem with a Class G exemption for Remote ID is the situation where a helicopter in a first responder or a SAR role is prevented from landing because someone is flying a drone close by. Being able to locate the launch position would allow LE or first responders to get the pilot to land his drone. Being able to identify the pilot would allow LEO to see if this was a first-time case or it was someone had done this multiple times.

But the general public doesn't need access to the actual data.

I understand your point. My view is that if an actor is set on doing something illegal or defy the regulations he will do so and not care anything about the law. I do think that your point has some merit concerning SAR. Exemption strictly based upon Class G understandably may not be the right solution but I think the FAA could designate much of rural America exempt.

 

[anotherlab]

Why are either of those options the only ones? What’s to stop manufacturers or third parties from making small, compliant add-on modules for older drones?

There is nothing to stop anyone from selling a compliant module and that option is mentioned in the Final Rule document.

 

[Chip]

If anyone tells you that Remote ID is just a license plate for drones its worth asking whether there are laws in place that regulate the collection, storage, access and use of the Remote ID information by law enforcement in their jurisdiction? Because that is where the analogy usually breaks down.

CA Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.54
Civil Action

(a) In addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, an individual who has been harmed by a violation of this title, including, but not limited to, unauthorized access or use of ALPR information or a breach of security of an ALPR system, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against a person who knowingly caused the harm.

(b) The court may award a combination of any one or more of the following:
(1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).
(2) Punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law.
(3) Reasonable attorney s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
(4) Other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.

Since Remote ID is just like a license plate then should we not have laws that protect our data and punish those who misuse or leak it just like in CA?

 

[anotherlab]

I understand your point. My view is that if an actor is set on doing something illegal or defy the regulations he will do so and not care anything about the law. I do think that your point has some merit concerning SAR. Exemption strictly based upon Class G understandably may not be the right solution but I think the FAA could designate much of rural America exempt.

I think that most people flying a drone where they shouldn't are just unaware of the restrictions or do it because they know that nothing will happen to them.

The problem with a rural exemption is that SAR activities do happen in rural areas too. I get what you are saying, but it doesn't follow the intent of the FAA's RID documents.

 

[brett8883]

I think that most people flying a drone where they shouldn't are just unaware of the restrictions or do it because they know that nothing will happen to them.

The problem with a rural exemption is that SAR activities do happen in rural areas too. I get what you are saying, but it doesn't follow the intent of the FAA's RID documents.

It seems like if this ever happened they could just yell out on a loud speaker to tell the operator to land the aircraft. It would be much faster then the airborne SAR crew identifying the location of the user, calling ground based LE and getting the operator to stop. Especially in a rural area that could take hours and extra personnel. If the drone is hostile or something then use a net gun or a real gun to take care of it if it’s really a life and death issue.

 

[brett8883]

@Chip I thought of something else and maybe it’s too abstract.

If a person does something illegal wether knowingly or not and this data is captured by the police and used to prosecute them aren’t they involuntary self-incriminating themselves without due process?

Like to use the TV example if the a person being detained by police spits out gum at the police station and throws it away in the police trash can, the police can use the DNA to prosecute the detainee. But the police can’t compel the detainee to give up DNA without a court order.

If someone is caught without using remote ID could they claim that RID infringes on their 5th amendment rights because it would be giving up information that could and will be used against them?

Without that data the FAA would have little proof of wrong doing in most cases.

 

[Chip]

If a person does something illegal whether knowingly or not and this data is captured by the police and used to prosecute them aren’t they involuntary self-incriminating themselves without due process?

Well that is where the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure comes in. Whether the police can use electronic surveillance to track you or your car or your drone and use that evidence against you in court depends on the facts and the circumstances and the law in the state (because a state can have privacy rights specially guaranteed in its own constitution). But I believe the upshot of the two US Supreme Court cases we discussed--Jones and Carpenter-- is law enforcement cannot track people using GPS devices or cell phones without a warrant absent exigent or emergency circumstances. So, why should government be tracking and logging every single flight of your drone which is obviously tied to you with zero evidence of criminality or probable cause?

 

[Chip]

Governmental use of an Aeroscope or similar device to intercept electronic signal from a drone to track drone or person may not only violate the Fourth Amendment but the federal wiretapping law which prohibits the interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications under 18 U.S. Code § 2511.

Buried in this law is a clause that reads:

(g)It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i)to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.

See why they want public access to the signal?

 

[brett8883]

Governmental use of an Aeroscope or similar device to intercept electronic signal from a drone to track drone or person may not only violate the Fourth Amendment but the federal wiretapping law which prohibits the interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications under 18 U.S. Code § 2511.

Buried in this law is a clause that reads:

(g)It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i)to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.

See why they want public access to the signal?

Ah ha! “So just force everybody to make it public” is that what they said.

Now it all makes sense.

What they are doing is is the equivalent to requiring all phone calls to be public for the express and stated reason of being able to lawfully wiretap citizens. I get it now. Take away the app and the whole thing falls apart.

 

[Thomas B]

Please guys.... distance ID technology is used with drones, aircraft, and even vehicle surveillance... no one is going to spend the millions of dollars that an attempt to make it a constitutional issue by taking it through several courts would cost...

 

[DanMan32]

Governmental use of an Aeroscope or similar device to intercept electronic signal from a drone to track drone or person may not only violate the Fourth Amendment but the federal wiretapping law which prohibits the interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications under 18 U.S. Code § 2511.

Buried in this law is a clause that reads:

(g)It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i)to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.

See why they want public access to the signal?

Sounds like back in early 80's in Queens and Brooklyn when there was no cable so HBO rented microwave antennas for their programming. Soon some stores were selling receivers to pick up the HBO signal.
The legal battle became: is it point to (multi) point communication which isn't allowed to be intercepted, or a broadcast that happened to use microwave frequencies? The transmission was not encrypted or scrambled.

 

[Chip]

Sounds like back in early 80's in Queens and Brooklyn when there was no cable so HBO rented microwave antennas for their programming. Soon some stores were selling receivers to pick up the HBO signal.
The legal battle became: is it point to (multi) point communication which isn't allowed to be intercepted, or a broadcast that happened to use microwave frequencies? The transmission was not encrypted or scrambled.

Dan, you might be interested in Jaffe v Google, federal appellate case from 2013. I believe the gist of case is that intercepting even an unencrypted communication may still break federal law.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/11-17483/11-17483-2013-09-10.pdf?ts=1411074102

Quick Summary:
In the course of capturing its Street View photographs, Google collected data from unencrypted Wi–Fi networks. Plaintiffs brought suit under federal and state law, including the Electronic Communication Privacy Act aka the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511. Google argued that its data collection did not violate the Act because data transmitted over a Wi–Fi network is an “electronic communication” that is “readily accessible to the general public” and exempt under the Act. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(g)(i). But the district court and the Ninth Circuit rejected Google's argument and Google settled for $13 million in 2019.