A discussion about drone tracking
- Thread starter pilotinstitute
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 849
- Reactions
- 1,024
- Age
- 66
This is how I feel too. I have an AI device (either Google or Alexa) in every room in my home. I start my car and my vaccum by voice commands. People ask me if I am worried about "Someone" listening in on me. I laugh and tell them I'd pity the person who had to suffer through monitoring a day of my boring life. My flights rise to about the same level of "meh." Oh wait, I do fly my DJI FPV without a spotter. Lock me up.
As an aside, I've been flying fixed wing RC aircraft for a couple of decades. Coming from that background to Drones starting with the Phantom 1 and seeing how drones were being flown, remote ID and Drone tracking should not be a surprise to any of us. Perhaps if we had better policed ourselves, we wouldn't be here today?
Not the drone police here, just somebody who loves to fly for the sheer thrill of it and worried about my future ability to do so.
It's built for Linux, so if you have that you can just download from your software manager or use your terminal and type 'sudo apt install kismet' or go here for your particular Linux distribution - Official Kismet packages
If you use Windows 10 you can go here and follow all the instructions - https://www.kismetwireless.net/docs/howto/win10/
Ocusync doesn't use wifi. It uses Software Defined Radio transmissions on the wifi frequencies, so I think you'll be better off getting a SDR dongle that goes up to 5.4ghz and software that can interpret the signals, which I have read are encrypted.
According to the video it tracks you from the moment your drone and controller connect to one another ad it keeps flight logs of you and others I recall up to 40 miles away. Sorry but if your not the FAA this is a bit much. The FAA decides who flies when and where not private industry.
dronerdave
Well-Known Member
I'd think it would have to be law enforcement or other government agencies legally authorized to enforce FAA rules who would be dispatched to deal with those not flying in compliance. Possibly a collaboration of both LE and security personnel. Just guessing here.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,757
- Reactions
- 2,374
Great topic and nice job on the video. Could be unauthorized interception of electronic communication aka wiretapping under state and/or federal law. The FCC has published warnings regarding the use of these specific devices to intercept and track drone signals. When a private company offers to collect and share data with law enforcement it may become a government agent subject to 4th Amendment.
Last edited:
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,757
- Reactions
- 2,374
Advisory on the Application of Federal Laws to the Acquisition and Use of Technology to Detect and Mitigate Unmanned Aircraft Systems August 17, 2020
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,757
- Reactions
- 2,374
AUGUST 19, 2020
fcw.com
Local and state governments, as well as airports, stadiums and other public and private infrastructure operators that deploy drone detection and mitigation systems run the risk of violating federal wiretapping laws because the systems intercept radio communications, according to an advisory from five federal agencies.
The Aug. 17 advisory from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission, and Department of Transportation, told local and state governments and private sector stakeholders to keep federal laws in mind in plans when they deploy drone detection and mitigation systems.
The systems intercept radio communications from the controller to the aircraft, which could violate wiretap and satellite communications intercept prohibitions, said the advisory. Systems that avoid radio communications intercepts, such as radar and acoustic detection, are less likely to violate those laws, it said.
As consumers have purchased millions of small, commercially-available drones in the last few years, federal, state and local governments have become increasingly concerned the aircraft could be being used in ways that threaten the public's security and safety.
The advisory was necessary, said an accompanying statement from the DOJ, because commercial demand for drone detection and mitigation systems is on the rise, while "the authority to use those capabilities is far from clear."
Only four federal agencies, the Defense Department, Department of Energy, DOJ and DHS, have authorities to use drone detection and mitigation and those authorities have limitations, said DOJ.
State, local and private sector could run afoul of federal laws if they deploy drone detection and mitigation systems without careful thought, federal agencies say.
Agencies warn on drone detection systems
State, local and private sector could run afoul of federal laws if they deploy drone detection and mitigation systems without careful thought, federal agencies say.
fcw.com
Local and state governments, as well as airports, stadiums and other public and private infrastructure operators that deploy drone detection and mitigation systems run the risk of violating federal wiretapping laws because the systems intercept radio communications, according to an advisory from five federal agencies.
The Aug. 17 advisory from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission, and Department of Transportation, told local and state governments and private sector stakeholders to keep federal laws in mind in plans when they deploy drone detection and mitigation systems.
The systems intercept radio communications from the controller to the aircraft, which could violate wiretap and satellite communications intercept prohibitions, said the advisory. Systems that avoid radio communications intercepts, such as radar and acoustic detection, are less likely to violate those laws, it said.
As consumers have purchased millions of small, commercially-available drones in the last few years, federal, state and local governments have become increasingly concerned the aircraft could be being used in ways that threaten the public's security and safety.
The advisory was necessary, said an accompanying statement from the DOJ, because commercial demand for drone detection and mitigation systems is on the rise, while "the authority to use those capabilities is far from clear."
Only four federal agencies, the Defense Department, Department of Energy, DOJ and DHS, have authorities to use drone detection and mitigation and those authorities have limitations, said DOJ.
And cities can't regulate airspace but they continue to pass drone bans. And wasn't there a recent thread where campus police used some type system to find a pilot? I guess they operate it illegally.
90% of my flying is in stealth mode but even I would be fine with RID if the FAA would be responsible for educating police, toy cops, lawmakers, the public, etc. Otherwise, I'll stick to older drones or find ways to disable the RID.
I am discouraged by the tracking of drones. The police will be called by ordinary citizens because they don't like what we are doing. The police will not have the knowledge to handle the situation and a knowledgeable remote pilot will be drowned out by copsplain.
I am not anti-cop but realize that they are trained to be in control of the situation which limits their desire to have a more knowledgeable source on scene.
Have you heard of 1st Amendment Auditors. Some of these folks are engaged in lawful activities only to have the cops show up and attempt to bully them out of the way.
Cops have a lot on their plate and will not become versed in drone laws therefore remote pilots will suffer.
I am not anti-cop but realize that they are trained to be in control of the situation which limits their desire to have a more knowledgeable source on scene.
Have you heard of 1st Amendment Auditors. Some of these folks are engaged in lawful activities only to have the cops show up and attempt to bully them out of the way.
Cops have a lot on their plate and will not become versed in drone laws therefore remote pilots will suffer.
Tell them you are registered with the faa and show them your papers.
Like the cop who bullied an auditor then, after that didn't work, lamented the fact that he couldn't knock people around like he used to and said that, "20 years ago, he'd be dead." Yeah, that cop's attitude is FAR more common than people think. To show how common it is, the cop was only given an 8 day suspension. And that's only after the video went viral.
I’m pretty new to drones, 2 months in and currently taking your 107 course, I need it for certain film shoots. Anyway, I saw this video and actually before that, was not sure if I should get into filming with drones because of all the regulation and perceived difficulties getting into it. It’s interesting that in the state I live in NH, there are plenty of guns (I own guns too) and there often gunshots during the day around here (hunters etc) as I live pretty deep in the woods. Yet authorities are (not yet) forcing gun owners to install devices that would broadcast each trigger pull, location of the firearm and bullet trajectory. We also don’t yet have sensors (directly) in cars that report our speed and driving habits. If anything I would say we should install mandatory breathalyzers in cars to prevent drunk driving which would prevent the car from starting. I just see UAS operations being far less dangerous overall than other risks to society at large. Maybe I am wrong, but is this whole industry not being regulated to death as it is?
dronerdave
Well-Known Member
It seems air travel is held to a higher degree of safety than independent automobile travel. What I see is a magnifying glass being put on mass transportation safety. There is a reason why we have NTSB and DOT type organizations that are so heavily involved in mass transportation rules. Automobile crashes happen daily yet we never hear much about them in the news. But plane crashes, bus crashes or train wrecks involving mass transit are usually plastered all over the news if/when something goes wrong. Government agencies that develop safety operations are often held responsible for incidents that happen in the transportation world especially when operational rules are in question as a possible cause. There is a huge push to mitigate a higher degree of safety within the NAS than vehicle transportation even though more people are killed daily in car crashes than most mass transportation injuries/deaths over the course of a year. Unmanned RC aircraft fall into a similar category in that an air incident would be held in the spotlight if it a UAV caused a manned aircraft to be put in a hazardous operational state or worse, crash. Drones are simply on the lower end of the pecking order. It does seem the FAA and others who develop rules to allow UAV’s to integrate into the NAS realize drone flights are becoming more common and a percentage of them are conducted outside the current rules. They probably look at increased UAV operations will just increase the chance of an unmanned vs manned aircraft incident even if the odds are extremely low it would ever happen.
Good video and/but/now For flights near airports in uncontrolled airspace that remain under 400’ above the ground, prior authorization is not required. He may have been able to go to AirData and show his path of flying. Not entirely accurate. I show landing some 50 to 100 feet off at the local airport. I have demoed my drone to the sheriff department and they say wow. Suggest you do the same. (small town)
Last edited:
A question regarding aeroscope...
Dji remote controllers dont have gps receiver built in so this meens that pilot location is broadcasting to the drone via telephone connected to the remote controller.
If you shut off the locations and celullar signal on your phone than your gps position is not broadcasted anymore to the drone. And if pilot move away to some other location after take off then aeroscope can not know his new location it knows only drones home point and flight route, but not know new pilot location. Im I right?
Dji remote controllers dont have gps receiver built in so this meens that pilot location is broadcasting to the drone via telephone connected to the remote controller.
If you shut off the locations and celullar signal on your phone than your gps position is not broadcasted anymore to the drone. And if pilot move away to some other location after take off then aeroscope can not know his new location it knows only drones home point and flight route, but not know new pilot location. Im I right?
Yaros
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
