Anyone seen this video by Alien Drones? IS this legit? Seems like a great option if it really works.
Cheap Remote ID Modules & the HACKS to make them INVISIBLE
- Thread starter WizardEyes
- Start date
Yep, saw it earlier. A bit premature since we don't know what will happen. Seems like a small effort to drive people to buy a particular brand offering a "loophole." I'm still going to wait and see.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 28,350
- Reactions
- 31,220
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Site
- mavichelp.com
"This is going to make it very difficult for some Karen of thug to steal our equipment"
Should I worry about my car too? Won't they want to steal that when I'm getting ready to leave the flying site?
Should I worry about my car too? Won't they want to steal that when I'm getting ready to leave the flying site?
Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head here. Anybody who has an RID receiver (that actually works as designed) will be able to receive nearby RID broadcasts. Tweaking settings in an application is not going to make a drone invisible.
apeel
Well-Known Member
If Karen cannot see it, then how do the appropriate authorities see it? If they cannot see it, how is this hack considered still compliant?
He said in the video the LE has to use special equipment to see the info. Apparently seeing it with a mobile phone isn't required.
We don't know what "trick" is being played here but apparently there may be settings in the default app (which is available to the general public) that have to be manipulated in order to detect teh drone. The ordinary karen will not know what is needed to get the app to properly detect and therefore the app is rendered useless while the more competent authorities will know how to customize the settings and will probably be using different equipment (other than a mobile phone) which could allow more advanced settings or easier access to them. That's my WAG.
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
It's not a "hack". All he is doing is restricting the functionality of the device while remaining in compliance with the RID rules. What he describes is valid, I just don't like the click-bait terms being used. That being said, I will probably get that device or something like it for my M2P.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
To elaborate further, what's being done is wifi configuration, all settings ordinary and available normally, nothing's being set out of range or in some hidden, back door fashion.
It's brilliant. Qualitatively, wifi on the RID transmitter is being configured to work in a way that everyday cell phones are not. So they don't see the signal. Cellphones are configured to look for Access Points and connect to them. A 1 second beacon interval will be ignored by the phone, it's too long.
A cheap RID receiver can be built that doesn't get defeated by this. Might be able to configure a cell phone wifi to detect this, but I'm guessing it requires admin privileges, so not so easy unless you can root/jailbreak the phone.
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
It's a bit like the old technology war between radar guns and radar detectors. While iPhones and non-rooted Android devices will not be able to detect a RID device configured like this, you can buy off-the-shelf Wi-Fi development boards that could be configured to see the signal. Probably even a Raspberry Pi with some custom code. But it will block most of the people, most of the time.
It wouldn't surprise me to see code written for a Flipper One with the Wi-Fi module that could pick a RID transmitter.
LoudThunder
Part 107 Licensed
In the video (at 9:15 …), it is explained that the authorities are using more sophisticated equipment… If the authorities are using a standard smart phone, you are still legal, that would equate to the Police saying you are speeding because you looked like you were going too fast. Remember, whatever the police are using to check your speed, the equipment must be calibrated and certified… Their personal smart phone is not an acceptable substitute as the App is not certified off Google Play…
Pretty much every state and local jurisdiction says the police officer is enough of a trained expert to judge your speed visually without the use or radar or lidar. It's enough probable cause to pull you over and issue you a citation. It's in the statue and it's recognized by courts. We don't have those protections in the drone world, if an officer cannot detect you with whatever equipment he is trying to use, he may take additional steps or he may ignore it.
If a cop is trying to clock you on radar or get your speed using a lidar (certified equipment) and your vehicle is approaching fast and the speed is reading 000, you can almost bet you will be stopped and suspected of jamming or evading his equipment (regardless if radar/laser jamming is illegal in your state or not).
It's 2023, this is the internet. It won't take long for all law enforcement to figure out what is going on here and do something about it; all they have to do is use Google. But for the first few years, I doubt they care much. One day next year or so, they pick up a drone flyer who's a peeping tom and they learn his drone doesn't transmit that he isn't using RID and it goes from there. Or, they are watching youtube and a video hits their feed showing you how to fly a "ghost drone."
I have no basis to say this, no proof, but the FAA DOC is arbitrary and they can pull it for any reason or no reason at all. One or two complaints from law enforcement about a "stealth module" and it's done, as far as I'm consider. It matter not whether the transmission is compliant or not. The FAA is not obligated to certify anyone; we all fly at the pleasure of the FAA because we allowed it.
LoudThunder
Part 107 Licensed
In Virginia, and I am pretty sure most states also have similar laws, the Police cannot "eyeball" your speed…
Here is the Virginia Code…
And they can use Photo Speed Monitoring devices, but no Eyeballs…
I remember an old Dodge commercial that the driver was being given a ticket because his car "looked" fast…
Thanks for posting the links. Keep in mind I said several things:
1.Even if there is a statute called "Determining speed with various devices" you should not expect to find anything in that section about using estimation since it tells exactly the parameters you will use for implementing devices. You cannot pull out a tape measure or use a stopwatch for example because it isn't listed. Nothing in that statute prohibits the use of "eyeballs" for estimating speed. But I agree with you, it would be vary hard to put down an exact number on the ticket and claim you are so good that you could tell he was driving 61 in a 50 and not 59 in a 50. Nothing stopping him from doing it but if it's estimated speed, it can be challenged much easier.
2.I said if an officer sees you speed, that is enough PC to pull you over and cite you. Maybe the citation is not for speed but maybe it for something else like careless or reckless or imprudent.
You are looking for something like this: Section 4511.091 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
But even here there are only [speeding] exceptions and also, it says you cannot be convicted; says nothing about being stopped and cited.
3.I also said there is either a statute or there is case law. Just because you don't have a law doesn't mean your state hasn't ruled on a case in which the officer made a traffic law based on his visual observation and when it went to court, the judge rules in his favor. But I will give you this, it is possible the court has ruled the other way that visual estimation alone is not sufficient in certain instances. It seems to me you would really have to be going super fast for this to be convincing but my point is, it's not prohibited and as you know, the officer has to at least have reasonable suspicion that you have violated the law in order to stop your vehicle.
4.Almost all training for using the equipment first requires a visual estimate of speed followed by confirming the speed using "various devices." Officers don't turn on the radar and see what it picks up. They observe people speeding and then they use their equipment to confirm their suspicions. Plenty of court cases to back this up; there are too many to name here and they go both ways because the circumstances are so unique and usually have to do with more than speeding.
You might find this interesting:
Visual Estimates of Speed and “Slight Speeding”
<p>The Fourth Circuit recently decided United States v. Sowards, an interesting case about a traffic stop. The case arose when an experienced traffic enforcement officer stopped the defendant on I-77 near Charlotte. The basis for the stop was the officer’s visual estimate that the defendant was...
nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu
Police Visual Estimation Speed Perception Expert
Police visual speed estimation / observation/ speed perception expert for speeding ticket / probable cause - accuracy, errors, expert witness testimony
www.trafficdoc.com
Vermont Supreme Court Upholds Visual Estimate Of Speeding
Visual estimate of speed justifies traffic stop in Vermont Supreme Court ruling.
www.thenewspaper.com
5.I mentioned statutes about speed, when you find places where it is ok to estimate the speed, the violation is likely a general statute that looks something like this:
Vermont Laws
legislature.vermont.gov
The point of this post is simple: As drone flyers, we have none of these benefits; we have zero protection. But still, I am glad we don't have a ton of special rules about drones.
anotherlab
Well-Known Member
What do you mean by that? Apps that collect RID data packets do not need to be calibrated or certified.
Devices that transmit RID data do need to meet requirements defined by the jurisdiction that covers the area that they operate in.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
LoudThunder
Part 107 Licensed
If you go back to what I wrote, "Their personal smart phone is not an acceptable substitute as the App is not certified off Google Play…"
The courts will not accept the police using a personal smart phone with some Free App that they downloaded from Google Play to verify if you are compliant with the RID rules… I never referred or inferred that specialized equipment did not need to be calibrated, nor certified.
You are "talking" apples (law enforcement and the FAA using specialized equipment) and I am "talking" oranges (a personal smart phone with any old Free Drone App, from who-knows-where, downloaded from Google Play…).
As I wrote further on in this posting, when equipment (electronic, optical, laser, whatever…) is used by law enforcement to enforce the law, that equipment must be calibrated and certified. An "eyeball" is not certified, nor calibrated to issue a speeding ticket, maybe enough to stop you and get you on something else, but not speeding.
And the police's personal cell phone is not calibrated, not certified to pick up the pick up the discrete transmissions from a drone…
So, you do not have to worry about Officer "Barney" agreeing with his neighbor/friend/sister "Karen" that you must be violating the RID Compliance Rules because their cell phones cannot pick up the Drone's RID…
But with that being said, the Police will do what the Police do… Recently, in NYC, an award winning new photographer was arrested by the Police for interfering with an arrest and they arrested her. The disturbing thing was the video the photographer took showed several other news reporters and photographers in front of her when the police pushed past those folk to arrest her, with the Police Captain screaming, "Arrest her, haul her @55 off to jail…"
So, as long as Officer Barney's brother is not the judge, you should have nothing to worry about…
LoudThunder
Part 107 Licensed
Of course this entire case is garbage, the original case referenced in the article says:
Deputy James Elliott stopped Sowards for speeding along
North Carolina’s Interstate 77 after visually estimating that
Sowards’s vehicle was traveling 75 mph in a 70-mph zone.
Although Deputy Elliott’s patrol car was equipped with radar,
he had intentionally positioned his patrol car at an angle that
rendered an accurate radar reading impossible.
The courts allowed this to go forward is a travesty… How could the court allow it to go forward when the Deputy had intentionally made it impossible to accurately prove a car was speeding. This was a "speed trap" where the Deputy could get his quota of tickets and arrests without probably cause…
Oh, I agree that Sowards was guilty as sin for have that cocaine but where is the protection guaranteed by the Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
And I know that the Fourth Amendment, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. And no Cop can tell the difference between a car going 70 verses 75 MPH…
I see this enough on TV when the TV cop says, "did you hear that, a moaning?" or "Do you smell that, I think there's a fire?" and they kick the door in, using the "exigent circumstance" clause in the law where an emergency situation requires swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence.
And then there is no one in the apartment, house, building, and no one was moaning and there was no fire, and they just walk out, pissed they did not catch the "Perp" and the place is left a mess…
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
Forum statistics
