Based on DJI’s presentation, how is this not an unlawful interception of electronic communication?
Its definitely an interception of an electronic signal which can be used to track a person's movements just like a cell tower simulator or "stingray." Some states like WA, passed laws banning use of stingray's without a warrant. But, there is one big exception in WA law. The government cannot use stingrays to track without a warrant
unless the device is owned by a third party.
Maybe this is why the US government says we cannot have any DJI product on any of our property but we are happy to outsource surveillance of the general public to DJI so long as we have access to the data without a warrant.
WA RCW 9.73.270
Collecting, using electronic data or metadata—Cell site simulator devices—Requirements.
The state and its political subdivisions shall not, by means of a cell site simulator device, collect or use a person's electronic data or metadata without (1) that person's informed consent, (2) a warrant, based upon probable cause, that describes with particularity the person, place, or thing to be searched or seized, or (3) acting in accordance with a legally recognized exception to the warrant requirements.
RCW 9.73.260
Pen registers, trap and trace devices, cell site simulator devices. (Excerpts)
(1) As used in this section:
(b) "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system,
but does not include:
(i) Any wire or oral communication;
(ii) Any communication made through a tone-only paging device; or
(iii)
Any communication from a tracking device, but solely to the extent the tracking device is owned by the applicable law enforcement agency.