Any Aeroscope info broadcasted?

[Flyin&Smilin]

What aeroscope details are broadcasted in the clear with the mini 5 pro?

 

[rgarjr]

Probably same as the others

 

[GadgetGuy]

What aeroscope details are broadcasted in the clear with the mini 5 pro?

Same as RID (Pilot location, drone location and flight path, drone model and serial number, heading, elevation above launch point, drone distance from controller, speed, distance from detector) plus a few others.

 

[Flyin&Smilin]

Can we check on linux with aircrack?

 

[DoomMeister]

Can we check on linux with aircrack?

Try these: Google Search

 

[Cafguy]

Can we check on linux with aircrack?

Aircrack is illegal to use on any other network but your own. It is considered "Hacking" and you could end up in jail.

 

[anotherlab]

Aircrack is illegal to use on any other network but your own. It is considered "Hacking" and you could end up in jail.

If you use aircrack-ng to monitor data transmitted by your own drone, that should be legal in most jurisdictions. Try to collect data from someone's drone without permission would be illegal.

 

[Flyin&Smilin]

Aircrack is illegal to use on any other network but your own. It is considered "Hacking" and you could end up in jail.

No it aint, same way SDR radio is legal...

Anywho just found out DJI encrypted droneID for some time now

 

[anotherlab]

No it aint, same way SDR radio is legal...

Using aircrack-ng on your own drone's transmissions is legal. Using it to gain unauthorized access to resources on someone else's system is illegal, defined in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1986.

 

[GadgetGuy]

If RID transmission is mandatory and public and detection is legal, why would what method was used to receive the RID transmission matter, whether via an RID detection app, a Dronetag RIDER, Aeroscope, or aircrack-ng? More importantly, why would it be illegal to detect someone else's RID transmission? Isn’t that the whole purpose of RID, that of making it public?

 

[Cafguy]

No it aint, same way SDR radio is legal...

Anywho just found out DJI encrypted droneID for some time now

Yes it is!

Using aircrack-ng on your own drone's transmissions is legal. Using it to gain unauthorized access to resources on someone else's system is illegal, defined in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1986.

THIS

 

[anotherlab]

If RID transmission is mandatory and public and detection is legal, why would what method was used to receive the RID transmission matter, whether via an RID detection app, a Dronetag RIDER, Aeroscope, or aircrack-ng? More importantly, why would it be illegal to detect someone else's RID transmission? Isn’t that the whole purpose of RID, that of making it public?

No one has posted in this thread that parsing RID packets would be illegal.

Using a tool to decrypt network packets to gain access to a network without authorization is illegal. It doesn't matter if the network is Wi-Fi or what the specific tool is.

 

[Cafguy]

All you really need to know about AEROSCOPE is if they are using it in a certain area they are pretty serious about enforcing a no drone rule!
Basically Stay away from the area with a Drone. Aeroscope is fazed out now anyway, It was replaced with AirWARDEN (at least in Annahiem).

 

[anotherlab]

DJI discontinued production of the Aeroscope system in 2022 and officially stopped selling it in March 2023.

 

[Flyin&Smilin]

DJI discontinued production of the Aeroscope system in 2022 and officially stopped selling it in March 2023.

And drone ID sent is encrypted now.

 

[GadgetGuy]

And drone ID sent is encrypted now.

Drone ID or RID? RID contains the same info and is not encrypted and is public.

 

[anotherlab]

It's a shame that DJI didn't add BLE to their radios. They could have made that an option for RID transmission. BLE range outdoors is about 100 meters under ideal conditions. That would have removed a lot of angst with RID.

 

[Droning on and on...]

It's a shame that DJI didn't add BLE to their radios. They could have made that an option for RID transmission. BLE range outdoors is about 100 meters under ideal conditions. That would have removed a lot of angst with RID.

100m is insufficient to meet the primary requirement of deconfliction and airspace management for autonomous commercial flights.

As for the angst, there will always be the hysterically paranoid. Foil helmet jokes persist for a reason. The actual track record with RID going on 5 years now, both with law enforcement and private antagonists does not support this "angst" at all.

The paranoia about RID reminds me a lot about a book, Bankruptcy 1995, which I read 30 years ago and found very convincing. I remember my father lovingly trying to talk some sense into me, given his greater wisdom and experience.

30 years later, I find myself often similarly shaking my head at the naive foolishness of those still gaining life experience.

 

[anotherlab]

100m is insufficient to meet the primary requirement of deconfliction and airspace management for autonomous commercial flights.

While that is correct, as the law is written, the RID data packets can be sent by BLE or Wi-Fi. A BLE RID implementation meets the legal requirements as well as being practically useless.

 

[GadgetGuy]

While that is correct, as the law is written, the RID data packets can be sent by BLE or Wi-Fi. A BLE RID implementation meets the legal requirements as well as being practically useless.

Too bad DJI didn't use BLE, as Dronetag RIDER currently cannot detect Skydio drones because they aren't using Wi-Fi, which is all they are currently able to detect, which includes all DJI RID.