FAA Drone ID Proposal- Round Two

[sar104]

Ok....then I don't know what PII is. However, I'm referring to what the NPRM says:

CFR Section 89.305

Message elements broadcast and transmitted by standard remote identification UAS. Standard remote identification UAS would have to broadcast and transmit the following remote identification message elements: The identity of the UAS consisting of the following:

1. The serial number assigned to the unmanned aircraft by the producer.
2. Session ID assigned by a Remote ID USS.
3. An indication of the latitude and longitude of the control station and unmanned aircraft.
4. An indication of the barometric pressure altitude of the control station and unmanned aircraft.
5. A Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) time mark.
6. An indication of the emergency status of the UAS, which could include lostlink or downed aircraft.

Right - that's not PII - it doesn't identify you. It says that a sUAS is being controlled from that location, but does not identify the pilot.

 

[Phochief]

Right - that's not PII - it doesn't identify you. It says that a sUAS is being controlled from that location, but does not identify the pilot.

My comment and concern has to do with giving the general public your exact location (lat/long) when you use your drone. Not your address, but your real-time location.

 

[sar104]

PII was only referred to in the DPPR info I included, which made a person's address public. My comment and concern has to do with giving the general public your exact location (lat/long) when you use your drone. Not your address, but your real-time location.

Yes - and location is not PII. There is no PII in the proposed data.

Neither, technically, is an address, unless linked to a name, but that's a different question.

 

[Phochief]

Right - that's not PII - it doesn't identify you. It says that a sUAS is being controlled from that location, but does not identify the pilot.

Perhaps the explanation by UAV COACH explains more clearly what I'm saying:

These seven pieces of information would be made available to your Remote ID USS and the general public. The additional information you supplied when registering your drone (such as your name and phone number) and your drone (like the model) would be kept private except when requested by law enforcement or the Federal Government.

Since operators are required to stay with the control station, this means drone pilots will be broadcasting their physical location to the public. That can raise some serious issues from pilots who operate in the same areas repeatedly or from their private homes. An individual who is disgruntled with your flight path that passes over their yard could easily determine your location and approach you with protests and complaints.

Unfortunately, there are still many people who fear drones who don’t know what constitutes a legal drone flight. We’ve heard the stories of people threatening to shoot down a drone or take forceful action to prevent them from flying. Plain and simple, there are some crazy people out there. For this reason, an operator’s physical location should only be made available to law enforcement who can determine whether or not the operator is flying safely and in compliance with the rules set forth by the FAA and take action if needed.

 

[sar104]

Perhaps the explanation by UAV COACH explains more clearly what I'm saying:

These seven pieces of information would be made available to your Remote ID USS and the general public. The additional information you supplied when registering your drone (such as your name and phone number) and your drone (like the model) would be kept private except when requested by law enforcement or the Federal Government.

Since operators are required to stay with the control station, this means drone pilots will be broadcasting their physical location to the public. That can raise some serious issues from pilots who operate in the same areas repeatedly or from their private homes. An individual who is disgruntled with your flight path that passes over their yard could easily determine your location and approach you with protests and complaints.

Unfortunately, there are still many people who fear drones who don’t know what constitutes a legal drone flight. We’ve heard the stories of people threatening to shoot down a drone or take forceful action to prevent them from flying. Plain and simple, there are some crazy people out there. For this reason, an operator’s physical location should only be made available to law enforcement who can determine whether or not the operator is flying safely and in compliance with the rules set forth by the FAA and take action if needed.

Personally I agree that pilot location data don't need to be available publicly. However, it's going to be in the broadcast data anyway.

 

[Phochief]

Personally I agree that pilot location data don't need to be available publicly. However, it's going to be in the broadcast data anyway.

Yes, but perhaps if the FAA would look closely at the federal law applying to car tag "addresses" they would miraculously see that giving the general public a drone operator's real-time location is not a good idea either. It's just a matter of removing public access to the lat/long even though it's still being broadcast to USS and law enforcement. I hope other drone pilots also ask the FAA not to give the general public access to our real-time lat/long location in their comments to the FAA.

 

[MumblesA10]

This is a good read with some "Background" and some more details worth reading:

https://kittyhawk.io/resources/Remote-ID-White-Paper.pdf?dl=1

Very good white paper

 

[Earthman]

I'm adding the below comment to my earlier FAA comments because I think our pilot location should not be available to the public.​

___________________________
The NPRM for Remote ID has a dangerous flaw - it makes the drone control operator’s location available to the general public. Giving the exact location of the pilot to anyone who wants it can endanger the pilot’s safety or create a situation where a disgruntled person could stalk the pilot, harass the pilot or threaten the pilot. Location data should ONLY be available to the FAA and law enforcement.

Why? A drone's Remote ID is kind of like a car's license tag. (Although a drone operator's name and address would be private, the real-time location of the pilot would be public).

Before implementing the Remote ID for drones which give the exact location of the drone pilot, perhaps the FAA should look at the Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994 for automobile license plates after a number of incidents where a person would use a license plate number to look up someone’s address and then proceed to stalk, harass and in some cases, murder them. (The federal law was passed in part in reaction to the death of actress Rebecca Shaeffer by an obsessed fan who obtained her home address from state department of motor vehicle (DMV) records and then stalked and killed her). (see below)

The DPPA requires all State’s Departments of Motor Vehicles to protect the privacy of personal information contained in an individual's motor vehicle record. This information includes the driver's name, address, phone number, Social Security Number, driver identification number, photograph, height, weight, gender, age, certain medical or disability information, and in some states, fingerprints. It does not include information concerning a driver's traffic violations, license status or accidents.
The Act imposes criminal fines for non-compliance and grants individuals a private right of action including actual and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees.
View attachment 89793

Thank you for the informative comments. I share your concerns; however, not expressing your concerns as a formal comment to the FAA is not as effective as it could be.

We only have until March 2, 2020 to leave formal comments to the FAA on this proposed rule. Please file your concerns as a formal comment. The following will help.

Tips for leaving formal comments:

https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf

Direct link to FAA comment page:

Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft...

www.federalregister.gov

Thanks!

 

[Chip]

Yes - and location is not PII. There is no PII in the proposed data. Neither, technically, is an address, unless linked to a name, but that's a different question.

Ok....then I don't know what PII is...

"PII" does not have one universal definition under all state and federal laws. Every state has its own Constitution and privacy laws which may provide greater protection from governmental surveillance than federal law or the US Constitution. (Washington is one such state). Consider this CA state law which bans use of location tracking devices by law enforcement without a search warrant:

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.

This measure was accompanied with the statement that “The Legislature finds and declares that the right to privacy is fundamental in a free and civilized society and that the increasing use of electronic surveillance devices is eroding personal liberty.

Note: Lawful use of a tracking device by law enforcement or any governmental agency or employee generally requires a search warrant issued by a court supported by probable cause to suspect criminal activity.

 

[Thomas B]

"PII" does not have one universal definition under all state and federal laws. Every state has its own Constitution and privacy laws which may provide greater protection from governmental surveillance than federal law or the US Constitution. (Washington is one such state). Consider this CA state law which bans use of location tracking devices by law enforcement without a search warrant:

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.

This measure was accompanied with the statement that “The Legislature finds and declares that the right to privacy is fundamental in a free and civilized society and that the increasing use of electronic surveillance devices is eroding personal liberty.

Note: Lawful use of a tracking device by law enforcement or any governmental agency or employee generally requires a search warrant issued by a court supported by probable cause to suspect criminal activity.

If there are more laws like this then likely you’ll have to agree to submitting your data to take off.... to comply with section “b” in the document you posted... easy work around there.... may not please all.

 

[wco81]

Wait wait wait, real time location of recreational drone flights are going to be publicly available in real time?

 

[sar104]

"PII" does not have one universal definition under all state and federal laws. Every state has its own Constitution and privacy laws which may provide greater protection from governmental surveillance than federal law or the US Constitution. (Washington is one such state). Consider this CA state law which bans use of location tracking devices by law enforcement without a search warrant:

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.

This measure was accompanied with the statement that “The Legislature finds and declares that the right to privacy is fundamental in a free and civilized society and that the increasing use of electronic surveillance devices is eroding personal liberty.

Note: Lawful use of a tracking device by law enforcement or any governmental agency or employee generally requires a search warrant issued by a court supported by probable cause to suspect criminal activity.

But since this proposal is not advocating the use of a tracking device by law enforcement, that's moot.

 

[Chip]

If there are more laws like this then likely you’ll have to agree to submitting your data to take off.... to comply with section “b” in the document you posted... easy work around there.... may not please all.

Yes, I can see that argument. Waive your rights or take your marbles and go home. But dont even think about playing marbles at your own home.

Yes, but perhaps if the FAA would look closely at the federal law applying to car tag "addresses" they would miraculously see that giving the general public a drone operator's real-time location is not a good idea either. It's just a matter of removing public access to the lat/long even though it's still being broadcast to USS and law enforcement. I hope other drone pilots also ask the FAA not to give the general public access to our real-time lat/long location in their comments to the FAA.

Yes, consider the CA laws governing governmental use of automated license plate reader data. Very strict privacy protections in place as opposed to the FAA's mass surveillance program.

Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.51

Duties of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Operator

An ALPR Operator shall do all of the following:
a) Maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
(b)(1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals' privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR operator has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site.
(2) The usage and privacy policy shall, at a minimum, include all of the following:
(A) The authorized purposes for using the ALPR system and collecting ALPR information.
(B) A description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the ALPR system, or to collect ALPR information. The policy shall identify the training requirements necessary for those authorized employees and independent contractors.
(C) A description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws.
(D) The purposes of, process for, and restrictions on, the sale, sharing, or transfer of ALPR information to other persons.
(E) The title of the official custodian, or owner, of the ALPR system responsible for implementing this section.
(F) A description of the reasonable measures that will be used to ensure the accuracy of ALPR information and correct data errors.
(G) The length of time ALPR information will be retained, and the process the ALPR operator will utilize to determine if and when to destroy retained ALPR information.

Civil Code Sec. 1798.90.53
Duties of ALPR End-User

An ALPR end-user shall do all of the following:

a) Maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
(b)(1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the access, use, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals' privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR end-user has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site.
(2) The usage and privacy policy shall, at a minimum, include all of the following:
(A) The authorized purposes for accessing and using ALPR information.
(B) A description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. The policy shall identify the training requirements necessary for those authorized employees and independent contractors.
(C) A description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information accessed or used, and compliance with all applicable privacy laws and a process for periodic system audits.
(D) The purposes of, process for, and restrictions on, the sale, sharing, or transfer of ALPR information to other persons.
(E) The title of the official custodian, or owner, of the ALPR information responsible for implementing this section.
(F) A description of the reasonable measures that will be used to ensure the accuracy of ALPR information and correct data errors.
(G) The length of time ALPR information will be retained, and the process the ALPR end-user will utilize to determine if and when to destroy retained ALPR information.

Ca. Civ. Code §1798.90.52(a)
Record of access; use of information

If an ALPR Operator accesses or provides access to ALPR information the ALRP operator shall do both of the following:
a) Maintain a record of that access. At a minimum, the record shall include all of the following:
(1) The date and time the information is accessed.
(2) The license plate number or other data elements used to query the ALPR system.
(3) The username of the person who accesses the information, and, as applicable, the organization or entity with whom the person is affiliated.
(4) The purpose for accessing the information.
(b) Require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy required by subdivision (b) of Section 1798.90.51.

 

[sar104]

Wait wait wait, real time location of recreational drone flights are going to be publicly available in real time?

Correct.

 

[Chip]

But since this proposal is not advocating the use of a tracking device by law enforcement, that's moot.

Its advocating the creation of a data base to be used by FAA and law enforcement, isn't it?

 

[sar104]

Its advocating the creation of a data base to be used by law enforcement, no?

Yes.

 

[wco81]

Correct.

When we say "publicly available," are we talking cops and FAA or any joe schmoe?

 

[Thomas B]

Yes, I can see that argument. Waive your rights or take your marbles and go home. But dont even think about playing marbles at your own home. ...

FAA, of course controls the sky over the U.S. from the ground up.
maybe complain to your state legislators?

 

[sar104]

When we say "publicly available," are we talking cops and FAA or any joe schmoe?

Under the present proposal - anyone with an internet connection (RID USS data) or a suitable receiver which is intended to include cell phones etc. (direct broadcast) will be able to see the data. No PII, but it will include aircraft and controller locations.

 

[islandflyer]

Carry a phone?

Yes, can you tell me where I am now? No. This will, anyone will be able to.