DJI Aeroscope Scanner

[bushie]

We need to remember that in China the whole concept of personal privacy does not exist. The state has an absolute right to know everything. Why would we expect DJI to give any thought to our personal privacy?

 

[Mr. Salty]

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)

Except big parts of that law were revised or repealed in 1996. I know Tom Cruise won a lawsuit when a tabloid recorded an unencrypted pre-digital cellphone call between him and Nicole Kidman.

 

[DanMan32]

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!

Not necessarily. Years ago HBO used to be received by a microwave receiver in areas that didn't have cable. Third party receivers were sold and the sellers were sued. The debate was if it was a point-point or broadcast transmission. You can't legally intercept point-point transmissions such as telephony microwave transmissions between towers.

There also was a movie channel scrambled on a UHF station. It was a debate if third party receiver/decoders were legal.

 

[ac0j]

Not necessarily. Years ago HBO used to be received by a microwave receiver in areas that didn't have cable. Third party receivers were sold and the sellers were sued. The debate was if it was a point-point or broadcast transmission. You can't legally intercept point-point transmissions such as telephony microwave transmissions between towers.

There also was a movie channel scrambled on a UHF station. It was a debate if third party receiver/decoders were legal.

I'll note that the sellers of the third party receivers got sued, and not the people using them to receive the content. Scrambling is their only hope. That is why wireless phones are encrypted. Because you cannot stop people from receiving on a public use frequency.
If tom Cruise won a lawsuit, well, Its because he is TOM CRUISE!
O.J. Simpson won an unwinnable court battle once too as we all know!

 

[UAVNV]

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.

its what you would see as the flightpath playback in dji go app, it shows the serial and attached email for the AS operator to use with the dji flysafe database. there are flags that are attached to the drone for permitted flying, unidentified drones (those without a valid email) can be checked against a purchasing database (when/where) and this can be ysed to follow up with any incidents for follow up (think of a red light speeding camera).

this has been for professional filming purposes, and is moving in to commercial airspace regulations for drones. this is to clear a path for retailers and restaurants to have right of way, and the hobby is the only secondary market standing in the way.

they have to have public agreeement first, and show how incompetent hobbists are before they can have right of way always.

 

[Chip]

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

Yes, it seems reasonable to protect an airport and other special sites that are legit no fly zones. But, notice that the Aeroscope is a highly portable and concealable briefcase designed to be carried anywhere to ID drones and their owners by select people before there are any state or local rules governing use and dissemination of information obtained.

 

[gnirtS]

The main problem with aeroscope is it shows the weaknesses in the transmission protocol. Which basically means at some point it'll be reverse engineered and 3rd party devices will be available to anyone and not just authorised users.

 

[Chip]

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.

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that stingray, dirtbox and similar devices which track movements of cell phones constitute a search and seizure and therefore cannot be used by government agents without a warrant issued upon probable cause.

 

[AMann]

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that stingray, dirtbox and similar devices which track movements of cell phones constitute a search and seizure and therefore cannot be used by government agents without a warrant issued upon probable cause.


View attachment 49789

That’s a big relief! Actually, Im not worried about it since I’m transmitting an APRS GPS signal anytime I key up on my HAM mobile rig and don’t have anything to hide.

 

[Chip]

That’s a big relief! Actually, Im not worried about it since I’m transmitting an APRS GPS signal anytime I key up on my HAM mobile rig and don’t have anything to hide.

Okay but you know what Snowden said about this....

 

[Chip]

We need to remember that in China the whole concept of personal privacy does not exist. The state has an absolute right to know everything. Why would we expect DJI to give any thought to our personal privacy?

Good point. Especially when the US government says do not trust.

 

[Chip]

 

[Chip]

From DJI's Own White Paper:

Although UAS do not carry people, and so do not implicate free movement of people, identification information does indicate the location of the person operating the UAS, thus revealing the activities of persons and businesses. The interest in privacy is, unfortunately, arguably heightened compared to manned aircraft considering the occasional violent confrontations that UAS operators have faced over the last few years, including physical assault and gunfire. A system that enables belligerent individuals to look up the name and address of, and then knock on the door of, a local UAS operator, is not acceptable and will detrimentally impact UAS operators who are operating safely and doing nothing wrong. The personal information of the owner (or operator) should be accessible to law enforcement only, who can investigate complaints of unlawful or dangerous conduct. Privacy and personal safety interests compel an identification system that protects operator business interests and discloses personally identifiable information only to law enforcement agencies.

 

[Chip]

Anyone using an aeroscope should be familiar with state criminal laws covering tracking devices like this one from California

CA Penal Code Sec. 637.7

637.7. (a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.

(b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle.

(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.

(d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.

(e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

(f) A violation of this section by a person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute grounds for revocation of the license issued to that person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions that provide for the revocation of the license as set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code.

 

[Drone_guy]

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.

Once a drone is located, AeroScope can be used to track the real-time and historical telemetry data of the aircraft whilst powered on and flying in the range of the AeroScope unit.

AeroScope tracks drones through the signal between the aircraft and its remote controller.

If a drone is located in an area, several pieces of information will be given. Information includes the drone location, altitude, speed, direction, takeoff location, operator location, model, serial number and the email address used for drone registration. The email address can be used to contact the pilot whenever follow-up is required. The use of the existing signal between the drone and remote controller means existing kit requires no changes to be tracked.

 

[dbyantis]

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).

The Aeroscope, is not available for purchase by just anyone so I doubt that your drone will be tracked by anyone other than licensed authorities.Comparing data collection for a car vs. the drone is not a reasonable comparison. If I am out in public flying, that location has nothing to do with anything related to me vs driving a car to a doctor's office.There is no expectation of privacy when out in public. So if someone saw me at the doctor's, it happens, I do not expect someone to look away for my privacy. I believe that it is important to have these tools, so at least there may be real evidence for all of the "drone sightings" at airports.

 

[AMann]

Anyone using an aeroscope should be familiar with state criminal laws covering tracking devices like this one from California

CA Penal Code Sec. 637.7

637.7. (a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.

(b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle.

(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.

(d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.

(e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

(f) A violation of this section by a person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute grounds for revocation of the license issued to that person, business, firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions that provide for the revocation of the license as set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code.

That law hasnt been enforced a lot except in cases due to harassment, stalking, etc. “T-hunting or Fox hunting” is often used by the HAM radio community to help the FCC find malicious radio jammers, etc. The high frequencies used by drones are very line of sight and easily triangulated by anyone with the right reciever and directional antenna, provided there are not a lot of other transmissions using the same frequency nearby, so it would be an easy task to find a transmitter controlling a drone.

 

[Chip]

That law hasnt been enforced a lot except in cases due to harassment, stalking, etc...

Do you agree that use of an Aeroscope by anyone other than a "law enforcement officer" in CA would violate CA Penal Code Sec. 637.7?

 

[Drone_guy]

Might be time to get a Parrot drone!

 

[AMann]

Do you agree that use of an Aeroscope by anyone other than a "law enforcement officer" in CA would violate CA Penal Code Sec. 637.7?

I don’t agree, because there is implied consent when you register your drone with the FAA if you use their legacy paper registration, that information becomes publicly viewable.

For example, anyone viewing N-Numbers, aircraft flight specs and looking up the N-number registration provided by transponder output, even online, isn’t violating that law as well.