DJI Aeroscope Scanner

[Mavic Ray]

Just another way that our hobby can be regulated and monitored: DJI's scanner can nab info on drones mid-flight

 

[Radioflyers]

Just another way that our hobby can be regulated and monitored: DJI's scanner can nab info on drones mid-flight

Dji might want to consider who pays their bills. I certainly don’t appreciate data sharing with the authority’s or big business.

 

[2nckayakers]

This discussion has been going on now for several months. My take is that it is only a bad thing for those who don't fly by the rules.

 

[lisadoc]

This discussion has been going on now for several months. My take is that it is only a bad thing for those who don't fly by the rules.

Let me pose this question to you: Would you feel the same way if Toyota collected all the same personal data (including your contact information) on when/where/how long/etc you drove with your Corolla, even if you were driving the whole time by the rules? Would you mind if Toyota produced a small device that allowed any of your neighbors to collect that same data on your vehicle and see it for themselves? If this circumstance is completely different (in terms of privacy concerns), why is it different?

I'm not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious what people would think about that and why, for drones many people seem to have no privacy concerns on behalf of the operator. (Lots of people have concerns about privacy issues for individuals that might be viewed from above by a drone but not for the operator).

 

[Mavic Ray]

Here's another article actually showing what the Aeroscope looks like: Tracking drones with DJI’s new Aeroscope technology

With all the hacking going on with the DJI products, i'm sure someone will find a way to mask their identity or create a fake one.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Let me pose this question to you: Would you feel the same way if Toyota collected all the same personal data (including your contact information) on when/where/how long/etc you drove with your Corolla, even if you were driving the whole time by the rules? Would you mind if Toyota produced a small device that allowed any of your neighbors to collect that same data on your vehicle and see it for themselves?

Your Corolla pretty much already has such a device, and your neighbors are probably about the only people who can’t access the data.

https://www.autofacets.com/insights/vehicle-data-safe-and-secure-access-for-third-parties/

 

[2nckayakers]

Let me pose this question to you: Would you feel the same way if Toyota collected all the same personal data (including your contact information) on when/where/how long/etc you drove with your Corolla, even if you were driving the whole time by the rules? Would you mind if Toyota produced a small device that allowed any of your neighbors to collect that same data on your vehicle and see it for themselves? If this circumstance is completely different (in terms of privacy concerns), why is it different?

I'm not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious what people would think about that and why, for drones many people seem to have no privacy concerns on behalf of the operator. (Lots of people have concerns about privacy issues for individuals that might be viewed from above by a drone but not for the operator).

I don't have a problem with it when talking about my Mavic because I don't consider it, like some, to be a toy. It is an aircraft, that can be flown at speeds, heights, distances and in places that can't be seen by other aircraft, can't be identified by visual line of sight, that can cause serious damage to other aircraft, disrupt traffic patters at airports (if used by someone who doesn't follow the rules), can stop life saving emergency or fire fighting operations if good judgment isn't used by the operator, and when it does cause major issues, the operator can just walk away without a care in the world and slip back into anonymity.

A car on the other hand, other drivers can see you coming, have a chance to take evasive actions if needed, others can at least identify you in some way if you did something illegal even if it is just make model and color of the vehicle you are driving. You as a car driver I would hope would at least want to try and drive safely and follow the rules because you are a passenger in the vehicle and your life could be impacted if you have an accident, and if you do have an accident chances are you are not going to get away without some consequences if you are at fault. Most people take driving a car seriously and don't consider it a "toy" and just jump in and drive anywhere and everywhere into places that they shouldn't be. If you were in a car you couldn't just drive through the fence at the airport and speed up and down the runway. You wouldn't just drive your car into your neighbors yard and do doughnuts around the house.

Let's look at this in another way. What if by some miracle of technology people could have an invisible car. And what if when they got inside this invisible car they became invisible as well. Wouldn't you be uncomfortable being on the road with cars you couldn't see? Wouldn't you want to know where they were? If one sped up behind you, sideswiped you, ran you off the road and kept on going wouldn't you wish you had something in your car that could tell you who the person was and where you could go find them? That is the way the FAA, General Aviation Pilots and Law Enforcement feel about a UAS because in the big scheme of things it might as well be invisible.

So we are not talking about apples to apples here when it comes to privacy unless you have an invisible car.

 

[MavicMoira]

Watch this video - it may change your opinion!

 

[smurfslayer]

As I said in the other thread, while the goal is at least on the surface, laudable Aeroscope intercepts encrypted wireless transmissions between 2 devices not owned by the auroscope user - presumably. beginning at ~3:40 into the video, they describe exactly that. in fact, I checked my state’s code, and it’s a misdemeanor with a potential 1 year in jail sentence. There is no exception cut into the law that I can see would cover a government official without a warrant, or anything I could see that would readily allow this within my area legally.
I would rather not start a “he’s what my state law” discussion and feed the people championing this tech because, well, it’s illegal now and it shouldn’t be legal in the future.

I fly on commercial planes, I don’t want a drone bouncing off a plane I’m flying in, I get it.

I think the problem currently is that the solutions being implemented, without really thinking about them are binary. Registration / licensing, etc. That has not stopped collisions of automobiles and won’t stop drone issues. Some usage should be legal without government interference, and I can see restrictions near airports or in flight paths. National Parks - not so much. A few more strike me as excessive regulation, but let’s not thread-jack this discussion.

Auroscope is illegal interception of encrypted wireless communication.

 

[lisadoc]

Your Corolla pretty much already has such a device, and your neighbors are probably about the only people who can’t access the data.

Vehicle data: safe and secure access for third parties | AutoFacets Insights

I'm not familiar with this technology. From the article you provided it's not clear - but are these "opt-in" streams of data? It's clear that 3rd parties can access this information but does the user/owner have control over what access is provided and to whom?

 

[lisadoc]

I don't have a problem with it when talking about my Mavic because I don't consider it, like some, to be a toy. It is an aircraft, that can be flown at speeds, heights, distances and in places that can't be seen by other aircraft, can't be identified by visual line of sight, that can cause serious damage to other aircraft...
So we are not talking about apples to apples here when it comes to privacy unless you have an invisible car.

I know that it's an imperfect analogy. And I understand the safety concerns for some uses of your drone. I get that. But if the only concern was for that specific problem, then there would be a better argument for allowing access to information and loss of privacy for those endangering the NAS. That would mean a few things: only law enforcement or airport officials should have access to the device and its use should be restricted to the immediate area of the airfield. Would those be reasonable restrictions on the device to help mitigate the danger but not allow open access to everyone's information?

 

[2nckayakers]

I know that it's an imperfect analogy. And I understand the safety concerns for some uses of your drone. I get that. But if the only concern was for that specific problem, then there would be a better argument for allowing access to information and loss of privacy for those endangering the NAS. That would mean a few things: only law enforcement or airport officials should have access to the device and its use should be restricted to the immediate area of the airfield. Would those be reasonable restrictions on the device to help mitigate the danger but not allow open access to everyone's information?

Now I agree that it shouldn't be used by everyone, that would be a complete invasion of privacy. But over an airport, prison, power plant, military base, or anywhere that the airspace is restricted or a TFR is in place, someone flying a drone shouldn't expect any privacy

 

[Keule]

Auroscope is illegal interception of encrypted wireless communication.

Hmmm ... interesting point.

But what if DJI, as manufacturer of both the aircraft and the remote controller, does not need to capture the link in between?
DJI can simply open a 'secret' (encrypted) channel on the aircraft and send the information needed by Aeroscope (type of aircraft, lat/long, heading, serial number etc.) and broadcast that into the air.
So, the Aeroscope ground station simply picks up that (secret) signal and provides the operator the information.

With that method, if applicable, there is no interception of a wireless communication.

Maybe someone with more technical insight figures out what's going on.

 

[HVYMTL]

After reading about Aeroscope and seeing several videos.. I had a few questions that came to mind.. maybe someone can help

What version of FIRMWARE did DJI start to Implement this on?

Are we positive occusync encrypts the data?

if occusync is encrypted why is it sending non encrypted data that can be intercepted?

Would it be possible for someone to spoof the information that is being transmitted? S/N, location

what are the possibilities of changing the encryption algorithms or the encryption keys that are being used?

Since the mavic is basally using an android OS.. couldn't someone implement a point to point tunnel between the AC and the RC and use IPSec to encrypt the "encrypted Occusyc" connection? Thus making it impossible for Aeroscope to gather the data.

 

[Drone_guy]

Well...in light of new legislation I think this subject should be revisited.

AeroScope has a variable range dependent on the requirements of the location it’s being used in. The range is based on the antennas attached to the unit. To increase the range, additional antennas can be added. A maximum range of 25 miles is currently available with AeroScope.

 

[Simmo]

You dont have to fill the details in???
If they implement some form of identification access (to your DJI account??) without your permission, I see that as an invasion of privacy???

 

[ac0j]

Auroscope is illegal interception of encrypted wireless communication.

Nope. Not at all. The federal communications act of 1934 (?) gives everyone the right to receive radio transmissions on ANY frequency. That is why there are radar detectors, and police scanners. ( and encrypted content)

I think this device could make more money than a drone itself. Look at the New Mexico Balloon fest thread. I wonder what kind of money cities or whatever would pay to get pilot information on ordinance violations? Maybe a cut of the imposed fines? I may look into buying one and renting its use!

 

[ac0j]

You dont have to fill the details in???
If they implement some form of identification access (to your DJI account??) without your permission, I see that as an invasion of privacy???View attachment 49780

Just like you can be identified by your address, phone number, car VIN, plate number, DL number, SS number. and many other things. There is NO PRIVACY if there are laws broken.

 

[AMann]

The funny part of this thread is that everyone here worried about privacy when flying their drone probably has an active smartphone in their pocket, or on their controller.

 

[dewster]

It would interesting to see what data is sent over the air. Im guessing: altitude, heading, speed, Home Point. Maybe serial number or some unique number specific to the craft. The demo that I saw revealed who the purchaser of the craft was and their DJI registration email.