American Security Drone Act (ASDA) (Q4 2022)

[baddog]

The American Security Drone Act: America's Paper Tiger vs. China's Trojan Horse

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=nslb

That document does not once mention any details, evidence or facts about what is being collected by these drones. Just political motives & opinions

 

[baddog]

When I upload flight TXT files manually and individually thumbnail images of photos manually taken during the flight are included in the TXT file that is uploaded to AirData. They show up in the media section of the flight information. They are also linked to the location on the flight route.

Google Earth/Google Maps works as well and better

 

[karlblessing]

That document does not once mention any details, evidence or facts about what is being collected by these drones. Just political motives & opinions

I believe that was the point he was highlighting in response. That this mess despite terms being thrown around such as Trojan Horse, is in fact a political battle and not a real security issue (least to the way they make it out to be)

 

[sar104]

Google Earth/Google Maps works as well and better

Not really, and totally different because the imagery is not current. But that said, crowdsourcing random video and images, even if they were uploaded to the DJI servers, is going to be a very poor method of intelligence gathering compared to targeted satellite imaging, for example. And all of this activity is in public view anyway.

The original, and real, intelligence concern relating to foreign drones was because various US Govt agencies, including the military, were using them in exercises, and the telemetry (and possibly images/video) could reveal sensitive information. But it makes no sense to restrict their use by USFS, emergency services or in other non-sensitive operations - that looks like political opportunism.

 

[karlblessing]

Not really, and totally different because the imagery is not current. But that said, crowdsourcing random video and images, even if they were uploaded to the DJI servers, is going to be a very poor method of intelligence gathering compared to targeted satellite imaging, for example. And all of this activity is in public view anyway.

The original, and real, intelligence concern relating to foreign drones was because various US Govt agencies, including the military, were using them in exercises, and the telemetry (and possibly images/video) could reveal sensitive information. But it makes no sense to restrict their use by USFS, emergency services or in other non-sensitive operations - that looks like political opportunism.

I imagine those public web cams are more useful at seeing traffic patterns or whatever.

 

[Brojon]

While I generally agree with the broader intent of the legislation, I’m not convinced that Congress should be making these choices on behalf of local and federal agencies that are perfectly capable of making risk assessments and for which using DJI products may be an acceptable and necessary “risk.” But I’m certainly not going to oppose this from the position that “the police need easier access to surveillance tools.”

Honestly, if this bill ultimately made it harder for police to get drones (which it doesn’t seem like it actually does), then I would probably be all for it, regardless of any concerns about congressional meddling.

Sorry, that's an assumption is be unwilling to make. What makes you think local authorities are up to date on electronic surveillance?

 

[AMann]

Why stop at drones? Why not ban Chinese-made cellphones that people carry and use in Federal buildings, properties and onto bases? These can certainly transmit video and audio recordings surreptitiously, and very easily for nefarious reasons.

Ha, and they probably wrote that bill using an Internet connected computer with Chinese made chips and a built-in WebCam and microphone…

 

[karlblessing]

Why stop at drones? Why not ban Chinese-made cellphones that people carry and use in Federal buildings, properties and onto bases? These can certainly transmit video and audio recordings surreptitiously, and very easily for nefarious reasons.

Ha, and they probably wrote that bill using an Internet connected computer with Chinese made chips and a built-in WebCam and microphone…

That's pretty much every consumer electronics right now to some fashion be it a transistor or board.

 

[Chip]

I believe that was the point he was highlighting in response. That this mess despite terms being thrown around such as Trojan Horse, is in fact a political battle and not a real security issue (least to the way they make it out to be)

You may be giving me too much credit. It was more like Vindi asked have you heard of a trojan horse and you asked in what context? At first I thought he must be referring to a computer virus that enters your hard drive under false pretenses, maybe lays dormant for a while, and then wreaks havoc.

But then I thought maybe he means the drones are given to law enforcement and emergency services, and other agencies which grow dependent and then at the right time the drones brick overnight. Along with all the Aeroscopes. The American Security Drone Act: America's Paper Tiger vs. China's Trojan Horse makes that point which does not seem that far fetched.

The discussion on the forum has generally turned around the unlikelihood that the drones could transmit anything back of value to a foreign country. The article argues that they likely do. I take no position on that because I do not know. I understand the concern, however, when a foreign actor controls 75%+ of a high tech market like drones and they can be grounded anytime unless you update.

 

[BobaFut]

Sorry, that's an assumption is be unwilling to make. What makes you think local authorities are up to date on electronic surveillance?

As if Congress is an expert on such things? If Congress were really concerned about surveillance, they could mandate counterintelligence audits and things like that rather than a ban. Congress is a fundamentally political body, and this bill is about the politics of the "China issue," not counterintelligence concerns.

 

[vindibona1]

As if Congress is an expert on such things? If Congress were really concerned about surveillance, they could mandate counterintelligence audits and things like that rather than a ban. Congress is a fundamentally political body, and this bill is about the politics of the "China issue," not counterintelligence concerns.

I think your reply illustrates part of the real problem we have here in the US, and probably elsewhere. EVERYTHING has become political. The frightening thing is that governmental agencies beyond congress have become highly politicized as well as Congress itself. We need to have faith in government and our institutions, but it's getting harder and harder.

I'll stop here, but much more to say.

 

[PacificSkyDreamn]

If people are interested in the economics of China's defense industry and relationship with its industry this is an excellent hour long lecture by an Australian economist who covers military issues.

 

[Don Testme]

So they fuss about this but no problem with fighters containing Chinese chips...figures.

What about most of the vehicles we drive every day? Should we stop selling cars with Chinese parts? This is paranoia or just politically motivated crap.

 

[Chip]

What about most of the vehicles we drive every day? Should we stop selling cars with Chinese parts? This is paranoia or just politically motivated crap.

To compare apples to apples you would have to restate the question. What if foreign country supplied 75% of all motor vehicles to US law enforcement and all other government agencies and they came with built in GPS trackers and engines that could be switched off remotely?

 

[Don Testme]

To compare apples to apples you would have to restate the question. What if foreign country supplied 75% of all motor vehicles to US law enforcement and all other government agencies and they came with built in GPS trackers and engines that could be switched off remotely?

Scary thought

 

[baddog]

Not really, and totally different because the imagery is not current. But that said, crowdsourcing random video and images, even if they were uploaded to the DJI servers, is going to be a very poor method of intelligence gathering compared to targeted satellite imaging, for example. And all of this activity is in public view anyway.

The original, and real, intelligence concern relating to foreign drones was because various US Govt agencies, including the military, were using them in exercises, and the telemetry (and possibly images/video) could reveal sensitive information. But it makes no sense to restrict their use by USFS, emergency services or in other non-sensitive operations - that looks like political opportunism.

Agreed.

 

[lookout]

To compare apples to apples you would have to restate the question. What if foreign country supplied 75% of all motor vehicles to US law enforcement and all other government agencies and they came with built in GPS trackers and engines that could be switched off remotely?

Onstar perhaps?

 

[Chip]

Onstar perhaps?

OnStar Corporation is a subsidiary of General Motors and offers subscription-based communications, in-vehicle security, emergency services, navigation and remote diagnostics systems throughout the USA, Canada, China, Mexico, Europe, Brazil and Argentina. You are not required to buy and activate OnStar to operate your own vehicle. I wonder how many law enforcement and military officers in China have Onstar installed on their personal and official motor vehicles with subscription that allows real time tracking and engine disable function to be controlled by subsidiary of General Motors headquarted here in US?